Help me refine my lens collection

Hi all. Just joined the forum here but have been shooting with my Canon XTi and XSi for about 4 years now, off and on. I've done a lot of research and lurking around but I'm starting to get slightly more serious about my outings and requirements for successful pictures.

Over the years, I've decided I'm most into sports/wildlife photography as well as walk-about portrait/landscape shots. I've accumulated the following lenses (in no particular order or fashion, mostly based on reviews and money):

18-55mm IS kit lens that came with the XSi
50mm f/1.8
55-250mm f4-5.6 IS

More and more, I find myself attempting to hone my sports photography skills, which is leading me to buying on obviously betters-suited lens for this. In the same regard, I would like to upgrade my kit lens to a better walk-about lens with possibly a bit more reach and certainly a faster one with better optics for use with both portrait and landscape opportunities (this leads me to want something in the 17-85mm region).

As of right now, for better sports photography, I have it narrowed down to either the EF 85mm f/1.8 or the EF 100mm f/2 for indoor sports photography. I'm a bit torn between the two at the moment.

For the walk-about lens, I have it narrowed down to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, or the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6. The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM seems great but is a bit too rich for my blood.

So, having shared these thoughts, I'm interested in any/all feedback on my rationale, considering it's still just a hobby and I don't look to make money from this stuff (at least as of right now). I welcome better lens suggestions, reinforcements of my thoughts, or anything else that I may not even be thinking about.

Thanks in advance!

For the walk around lens, among the choices you listed I would go with the EF-S 15-85mm. I was never impressed with the older 17-85mm, and the 18-135mm does not get very good reviews. The 15-85mm gets very good reviews, with image quality very similar to the 17-55mm f/2.8.

For the indoor sports prime, either option should work. I own the 85mm f/1.8 and love the lens. It's auto focus is lightning fast, which you want for action shots.

- Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Canon 55-250 IS is the best price/quality sharp set.
- When more budget : Canon 17-55 2.8 IS + 70-200L f2.8 IS for sports is the best offcourse
- Primes : 135 f2L + 200 f2.8L are great (bokeh/compact)

Scott M wrote in post #11389409
For the walk around lens, among the choices you listed I would go with the EF-S 15-85mm. I was never impressed with the older 17-85mm, and the 18-135mm does not get very good reviews. The 15-85mm gets very good reviews, with image quality very similar to the 17-55mm f/2.8.

For the indoor sports prime, either option should work. I own the 85mm f/1.8 and love the lens. It's auto focus is lightning fast, which you want for action shots.

The 15-85mm does appear to be the best compromise of price and quality. I will definitely keep that one in mind.

I was leaning more toward the 100mm f/2 simply for the slight extra reach and some of the reviews I've seen say it is ever so slightly sharper than the 85mm. I just can't decide since they're so comparable, which I guess is a good thing in that I can't go wrong with either.

CanonYouCan wrote in post #11389416
- Tamron 17-50 2.8 + Canon 55-250 IS is the best price/quality sharp set.
- When more budget : Canon 17-55 2.8 IS + 70-200L f2.8 IS for sports is the best offcourse
- Primes : 135 f2L + 200 f2.8L are great (bokeh/compact)

Thanks for that Tamron 17-50 suggestion. I had completely overlooked that lens, but it looks great. My only worry is its fairly short telephoto end of 50mm. On one hand, you're right, it would fit perfectly in my line of 17-50, 50mm prime, 55-250 setup. However, I'm also open to completely changing my setup if I went the 15-85mm and 100mm prime route, then would just add a telephoto in the 100-300mm range (haven't looked at those yet, though).

Edit: Another worry about the 17-50 is the lack of IS. I am still on the fence about IS as to whether I need it or not. I've only owned IS lenses so I'm having a tough time deciding.

Well Canon's 17-55 is only 5mm more, it's not about reach here.
This standardlens is considered for landscapes,group pictures, portraits but most important the sharpness and fast f2.8.

Less problems with pictures inside and evening.
Don't like lenses to hunt and unable to focus due to the lack of light.

When you put on the 55-250 IS you have portrait -> long telephoto, a great duo.
You can buy a 24-105 for longer reach in 1 lens, but then you have the f4 which is not so fast, vignetting, lesser bokeh.

How longer the reach of your standardzoom, how more light you lose and less IQ.
To put it extreme : i had the Sigma 50-500 in past, the same as above, less IQ and slow lens. For the widest zoomrange I would get the 100-400L IS

My ideal standardzoom is the 28-70 f2.8 but i'm on fullframe

I recommended the Tamron 17-50 + Canon 55-250 IS to two friends and they work with full satisfaction with this combo.
Both are cheap, sharp, best price/quality.

For me, for a lot of indoor sports, the 100mm would be to long while at the same time to short for outdoor sports... I'd recommend getting the 85mm prime.

For your walkaround Id recommend the Tamron 17-50 (VC or not) for the constant 2.8 (though the canon 17-55 would be better if you could make it happen)

On the telephoto end your 55-250 is a great lens.. but if you are looking to upgrade that as well, there are a bunch of good 70-200 options. Sigma makes several decent 2.8 versions, or if you don't need 2.8 the canon 4 (IS or not) are both very good lenses. (Assuming again that a canon 2.8 is out of the question) Or, if you need to go to 300 the Sigma 100-300 4 is a very good lens. If you are interested in a telephoto prime the Canon 200mm 2.8 L is great and relatively inexpensive.

I agree 100mm is a bit awkward, and prevents one from using the 135mm as a sensible step-up if necessary. Of course at that point, having a 85mm and 135mm would be less useful than just a single 70-200. So, the 85mm does make sense from that point of view, but at the same time I can't help but think I'm gonna kick myself for not getting the extra 15mm.

I love my 55-250mm lens. I was actually considering stepping up to the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM but hadn't decided yet. I think I would only do that if I ended up getting the 85m prime as losing 55-70 is fine by gaining 250-300.

I think the only way I'd upgrade to a 70-200 would be for the 2.8 as the reach I'd be using it for would mostly be sports. F4 isn't going to do me much good.

Fligi7 wrote in post #11389517
Thanks for that Tamron 17-50 suggestion. I had completely overlooked that lens, but it looks great. My only worry is its fairly short telephoto end of 50mm. On one hand, you're right, it would fit perfectly in my line of 17-50, 50mm prime, 55-250 setup. However, I'm also open to completely changing my setup if I went the 15-85mm and 100mm prime route, then would just add a telephoto in the 100-300mm range (haven't looked at those yet, though).

Edit: Another worry about the 17-50 is the lack of IS. I am still on the fence about IS as to whether I need it or not. I've only owned IS lenses so I'm having a tough time deciding.

Simply turn off the "IS" on your 18-55IS, does it make a difference in your shots at a low shutter speed?
If it doesn't, you're a candidate for non-IS type lens like primes, or the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

Good idea, Watt. I was considering just renting a non-IS lens to try out and see how it worked out, so I could kill two birds with one stone (try out a new lens and see if I really need IS).

It's just been such rainy weather, it's been hard to get out and about lately for shots.

Green_Tea wrote in post #11389666
For me, for a lot of indoor sports, the 100mm would be to long while at the same time to short for outdoor sports... I'd recommend getting the 85mm prime.

I keep debating in my head back and forth about this. I'd really like to hear your thoughts on why the 85mm is a better choice.

I was in the same shoe 2 month ago, some folks here(including watt100) recommended the tamron 17-50 non-vc. but out of my stubbornness and fear of my handshake, I got the tamron 17-50 vc. But... guess which lens I replaced it by a month and half later? Oh that's right look in my Signature LOL.

I dont have steady hands but I still never looked back on my decision

Whatever you get, be able to return the lens wthin a reasonable period of time (say, 14 days). Thoroughly test your new lens at all zoom extremes, and at all apertures. Use a complex subject - say someone's kitchen - to test sharpness and CA issues.

I'd say do not go cheap on lenses if at all possible. With digital cameras the lens is now the determining factor in image quality (it was not with film cameras). There are several lenses I'd wholeheartedly recommend in the Canon line. Also (interestingly), don't assume all L lenses are the best, either. There are several non-Ls that outperform the Ls.

For sure, BestVisuals. Fortunately, I have a somewhat-local place I can rent lenses from once I narrow it down to a couple, which is the stage I'm hoping to get to. Making the decision on here only begins the process of renting and testing for the real-world experience. I'm well aware that certain lenses outperform much higher priced and marketed ones (which is one of the main reasons I'm posting on this forum). I'm looking to you all to bring these other lenses to light so I can make a better-informed decision based on things I hadn't thought of or lenses I wouldn't have considered previously.

I would have to agree with the Tamron 17-50 non-VC suggestion as a replacement for your 18-55 kit lens. Then get an 85 1.8 for sports and a 70-200L version of your choice and you've got a good setup.