What lens would you get to replace the Canon EF-S 18-55mm?

CountryBoy wrote in post #11032428
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC , it's still plastic but better then the kit lens , or the new Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS lens .

+1

I have the Siggy 17 - 50mm 2.8 EX OS and I luv it. I would also recommend the Tamron, my friend has the non-VC one and it takes really great pics or maybe I should say he takes really great pics with it. I went with the Sigma for the better build quality (at least it feels that way) and the OS.

Vixen89 wrote in post #11032377
any ideas on what I should get to replace this one lens?

Nothing. There are no problems with the lens. Examples:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I replaced my 18-55 with the 18-55IS.
Does not cost you an arm and a leg and is quite an improvement.
If you want to spend more...I refer to the previous postings in this thread.

the 18-55IS has good IQ (see the nice pics bellow) - so you may have to work on your technique

if you want an upgrade at reasonable price you can get the 17-85 at great prices now it is not as good as the new 15-85 but it is a nice lens

I use a 24-105L and 10-22 Canon lenses in place of the kit lens with the 40D. My wife is using 17-85 Canon, she likes it over the 18-55 kit lens on her T1i. I like the fact she took the 17-85 lens because she bought me the 24-105 to replace the 17-85 lens she took from me. We are looking at the Canon 17-55 IS and 24-70L lenses to replace the 17-85. If she can make up her mind as to which one she wants for her camera. No, I not getting her both lenses.

Since you have 2 primes (and want 2 more), how about something like the 30mm 1.4, especially since you have the 10-22? True, that leaves you open between 30mm and 55mm (or between 30mm and 85mm for a good, fast lens), but judging by your kit that's what I'd go for.

Otherwise any of the suggestions in this thread are good lenses, including the Tamron 17-50, the Sigma 17-50, or even the Canon 17-55mm (although that's well within L glass territory), but it all determines on how you'll use or need it.

Just something to think about.

Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM hands down. Best lens I have ever used. (to replace the 18-55 you said) This would be the best at that focal length hands down.

http://www.usa.canon.c​om …p/ef_s_17_55_f_​2_8_is_usm

I could not ask for more at the focal range. All the best to you. There IS NO EF lens which has all the features of this lens or I would have got that instead. This lens is a one of a kind unless you go to Sigma or Tamron, but those are also "crop sensor" lenses.

i made the decision to switch from 18-200 kit lens a couple of days ago..
read a lot of reviews, discussion, and picture samples..
decided to buy the 17-40 L cos i just love the build quality, color rendition, and the resale value..
sure the tamron 17-50 is cheaper, covers more range, and faster, but i'm not a huge fan of its build quality..
if i'm selling my lens it has to be for something really different..
just sharing, my 2 cents..

I think the 18-55 lens is great for what it is and produces very sharp images...

Here is one picture I took with it...

Tamron 17-50 non0vc gets my vote. Its sharper, 2.8 and better color depth for $350 used. Awesome little lens that IS an improvement over the kit lens.

Op > As other have mentioned this lens is very capable, I would suggest one of two things

1. If you have a bad copy of the lens, get the repaired/swapped

2. If you have a good copy of the lens, then your own technique needs working if you aren't happy with any of your photos

CountryBoy wrote in post #11032428
Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC , it's still plastic but better then the kit lens , or the new Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 OS lens .

Good options, that won't break the bank.

I like this range on a crop, as a general walk around lens. 24mm just wouldn't be wide enough for me.

The 15-85 is a great option as well, if the constant f/2.8 isn't that big of a deal. And you get the added 35 mm of range, which sometimes is something that I wish my 17-55 had.

.

17-55 on crop or 24-70 for FF or 1.3x. The 15-85 is also a good option if you can't afford the 17-55.

I wanted macro capability, wider angle, more zoom and more speed. Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM was the best compromise and i've been very happy with it.

And as it's pretty big and heavy, it has the street credibility factor too.

I concur, the 15-85 works perfectly on a crop body (24-135 equivalent) will give you a great shooting range and excellent image quality (IQ). A bit pricey, but your photos can turn out to be priceless.