Asking the Experts - Right lens for my shooting?

Hello All!

Like your opionion on the right lens for my shooting!

I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 4.0L (no IS), SIGMA 105mm MACRO along with my 18-55mm kit lens. Looking to find something to replace my kit lens.

I shoot with a 50D and will probably stay crop for the foreseeable future.

I primarily shoot outside, nature, critters (from hummingbirds to lizards, frogs, birds etc), old buildings, some landscape (typically not wide shots).

What is your opinion on the best lens to replace the 18-55mm kits lens given my situation above??? Appreciate all the experience and knowledge on this site!

FYI...budget is under $1200.

Thank you for your help!

You forgot to tell us why you are looking for something to replace the 18-55. What do you want the new lens to do that the 18-55 does not?

Faster?
Wider?
Longer?
Specific IQ issues (CA, flare, distortion, vignetting)?

^+1

But, the most recommended high end walk-around on a crop camera is the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS.
Other common recommendations:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC (cheap and sharp)
Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC (fairly cheap slightly less sharp)
Canon 24-70 2.8 (Great build quality, weathersealed, no IS, not very wide)
Canon 24-105 4 IS (Great build quality weathersealed, extra range, not very wide, slow)
Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS (Medium price, maximum range/versitility, variable aperture, slower)

Looking to get sharper and better color. Filling in the range under my 70-200mm.

Honesty been back and forth between Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, 24-70mm 2.8 and 24-105mm 4.0

They all have pro's and cons but am not sure of the best answer for my needs. Not opposed to other suggestions....

hramakers wrote in post #11433755
Looking to get sharper and better color. Filling in the range under my 70-200mm.

Honesty been back and forth between Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS, 24-70mm 2.8 and 24-105mm 4.0

They all have pro's and cons but am not sure of the best answer for my needs. Not opposed to other suggestions....

All three of these lenses are sharper than the EF-S 18-55. The 24-70 and 24-105 both have better color, the 17-55 is a bit cool in my experience.

I prefer the 17-55 on a 1.6X camera because of the focal length. I don't find the 24-XX choices great (for me) on this format mostly because 24mm is not wide enough.

If you tend to shoot only normal to telephoto then the 24-70 or 24-105 are nice choices. I'd probably lean towards the 24-70 on 1.6X because I like faster lenses on the smaller format to control DOF. f/4 is getting to be a little too slow in a lot of situations for DOF on 1.6X.

hramakers wrote in post #11433079
Hello All!

Like your opionion on the right lens for my shooting!

I currently have a Canon 70-200mm 4.0L (no IS), SIGMA 105mm MACRO along with my 18-55mm kit lens. Looking to find something to replace my kit lens.

I shoot with a 50D and will probably stay crop for the foreseeable future.

I primarily shoot outside, nature, critters (from hummingbirds to lizards, frogs, birds etc), old buildings, some landscape (typically not wide shots).

What is your opinion on the best lens to replace the 18-55mm kits lens given my situation above??? Appreciate all the experience and knowledge on this site!

FYI...budget is under $1200.

Thank you for your help!

i'd get the 17-55 IS.

ed rader

Since you like shooting hummingbirds and birds , I'd keep the kit kens for awhile longer and get a longer lens .

How about a nice used 100-400? For the price, it's a great lens for birds. Also consider a used 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4

richardfox wrote in post #11433910
How about a nice used 100-400? For the price, it's a great lens for birds. Also consider a used 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4

If you can find me a used 300mm 2.8 for under $1200 , i'll take it !

richardfox wrote in post #11433910
How about a nice used 100-400? For the price, it's a great lens for birds. Also consider a used 300 f/2.8 or 300 f/4

17-55 would be a good replacement, but maybe a longer lens as already suggested would be better? The 300/4 prime is great for birds. I've used that to shoot hummingbirds with good results.

17-55mm f/2.8 IS or 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Unless you really need f/2.8, I would get the 15-85mm.

Thanks for all the insight....I'll get the 100-400mm at some point, which would give me that and the 70-200mm 4.0 that I already have for birding etc on the long end, but I would like to get something shorter beneath the 70-200mm (although there may be some cross over if I go to like a 105mm.) That's where I get real confused.

Player9 wrote in post #11433966
17-55mm f/2.8 IS or 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Unless you really need f/2.8, I would get the 15-85mm.

The 15 - 85mm strikes my interest. Don't hear much about that. I take it you like it better than the 17-55 IS?

hramakers wrote in post #11433967
Thanks for all the insight....I'll get the 100-400mm at some point, which would give me that and the 70-200mm 4.0 that I already have for birding etc on the long end, but I would like to get something shorter beneath the 70-200mm (although there may be some cross over if I go to like a 105mm.) That's where I get real confused.

In that case , I'd get the 17-55mm 2.8 .

I too am interested in hearing peoples thoughts between the 17-55 and the 15-85. I want to know if IQ is similar. I know 17-55 is supposed to be amazing, I would love the extra reach though.