It's time to upgrade my lenses...

I've had the Canon T1i w/ the 18-135 lens for about 18 months, and am very impressed by the camera. I do feel it's time to upgrade the lens however, as I've gotten into editing the photos more, and am noticing the softness and so forth in the 18-135.

With this, I'm looking at picking up one or two lenses to give me a broader range and better quality.

On the wide side, I'm considering:

Canon EF-S 15-85 (3.5-5.6 IS USM)
Canon EF-S 17-55 (2.8 IS USM)

On the telephoto side, I'm considering:

Canon EF 70-300 (4-5.6 IS USM)
Canon EF-S 55-250 (4-5.6 IS)

I'd love to be able to go for an "L" series lens, but the price point is just too high at this point for something that's a hobby. I am however concerned on the telephoto side about not having a faster lens.

With all of this, I'm leaning towards the 15-85 & 70-300, which would ultimately fully replace the 18-135. However, the 17-55 is attractive due to it's faster speed.

My questions truly are:

• Is the 15-17 range worth the give back in speed?
• How is the quality of the 70-300 compared to the 55-250?

Most of my photography is street scenes, and standard vacation travel. However I do enjoy photographing sporting events that I attend.

Thanks to all!

Maybe the 10-22 or the 70-200 f 4 . The 15 and 17 have to much overlap .
Not worth the money for the little you gain .
--
1st it's a hobby
7D gripped XTI gripped
Canon - efs 10-22 , 17-55 , ef 18-55 IS
EF 28-90 , 28 @ 2.8 , 50 @1.8 , 28-135 IS
L's 35-350 , 70-200 MK II IS
Quantaray lens 70-300 macro
Sigma 135 - 400
2X III , Life Size converter
KSM filters for all
kenko auto tubes , EF 25

I'm not sure that you're asking the right question.

Prices on Amazon.com now are, respectively,
$759 and $1120--a $360 difference.

So, if the IQ differences are not significant--I haven't used either lens, but I hear they're both good--then are you willing to pay that much more for 1/2 stop difference at the wide end and a 2 stop difference at the tele end?

For me, such small differences in maximum aperture have never been compelling. I purchased the 70-200 L2.8 II when I already had the L 4.0 IS version. I find that I end up taking the 4 more often due to size and weight.

If it's truly a low-light situation, I prefer to shoot with a prime lens like the 35L f/1.4.

So, if you are budget constrained, make the purchase based on IQ not maximum aperture.

As for the tele end, look at the recent thread about the 55-250. It's a damn good lens, and it is much more compact. I have the 70-300, but it's bigger than my 70-200 L4 IS, so I end up taking the L4 (do you detect a pattern here?).

I recommend getting the 55-250 and saving your money until you can afford the L4 IS. That lens is one of the best lenses that Canon--or any camera company-- has ever made.

briguynyc said:

I've had the Canon T1i w/ the 18-135 lens for about 18 months, and am very impressed by the camera. I do feel it's time to upgrade the lens however, as I've gotten into editing the photos more, and am noticing the softness and so forth in the 18-135.

With this, I'm looking at picking up one or two lenses to give me a broader range and better quality.

On the wide side, I'm considering:

Canon EF-S 15-85 (3.5-5.6 IS USM)
Canon EF-S 17-55 (2.8 IS USM)

On the telephoto side, I'm considering:

Canon EF 70-300 (4-5.6 IS USM)
Canon EF-S 55-250 (4-5.6 IS)

I'd love to be able to go for an "L" series lens, but the price point is just too high at this point for something that's a hobby. I am however concerned on the telephoto side about not having a faster lens.

With all of this, I'm leaning towards the 15-85 & 70-300, which would ultimately fully replace the 18-135. However, the 17-55 is attractive due to it's faster speed.

My questions truly are:

• Is the 15-17 range worth the give back in speed?
• How is the quality of the 70-300 compared to the 55-250?

Most of my photography is street scenes, and standard vacation travel. However I do enjoy photographing sporting events that I attend.

Thanks to all!

Click to expand...

gatorowl said:

I recommend getting the 55-250 and saving your money until you can afford the L4 IS. That lens is one of the best lenses that Canon--or any camera company-- has ever made.

Click to expand...

I agree 100% with Gatorowl's recommendation. I owned a 70-300 and was not happy. I replaced it with a 70-200L F4 IS, and have been more than happy with it. Save you money and get the 55-250 for now, and pick up the L when you can.

Regarding the 15-85 and 17-55, I have the latter. That being said, I would recommend the former for you. As an everyday walkaround and travel lens, the 15-85 offers a nice FL range and IQ package that would be hard to beat.

The 15-85 was not available when I bought my 17-55. I will not sell the 17-55 to get the 15-85, however I can see owning both lenses.

briguynyc said:

• Is the 15-17 range worth the give back in speed?

Click to expand...

The difference between 15mm and 17mm is more significant than you might think. And the 15-85 also has those extra 30mm on the long end.

However, in response to your question whether the trade off of larger zoom range vs faster max aperture is worth it, it depends on how you plan to use the lens. I use my 15-85 almost entirely as an outdoor walk around lens, and for this purpose, the trade off is most definitely worth it. However, for interior/low light/shallower dof photos, the 17-55 would be the better choice. (Personally, I use a fast prime for my low light/shallow dof photography.)

Thanks to all for the feedback. In buying these two lenses, I most likely would put the 18-135 into reserve and just carry the two new lenses, or a single lens depending on what I'm going out to shoot.

Sidekicker said:

I agree 100% with Gatorowl's recommendation. I owned a 70-300 and was not happy. I replaced it with a 70-200L F4 IS, and have been more than happy with it. Save you money and get the 55-250 for now, and pick up the L when you can.

Click to expand...

Is there any sharpness concerns with the 55-250 especially in the 200-250 range? I know with the 18-135 I have sharpness issues at the extremes, and I'm wondering if this is even worse with the 55-250. (Maybe it's me, but it almost seems the 55-250 is too cheap compared to the others)

Sidekicker said:

Regarding the 15-85 and 17-55, I have the latter. That being said, I would recommend the former for you. As an everyday walkaround and travel lens, the 15-85 offers a nice FL range and IQ package that would be hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm tending to agree with this, and do believe that the image quality from the 15-85 should be sharper than the 18-135 from what I've read. It will also be nice to gain the 15-18 range for nature/architecture shots.

One day... I'll make the plunge into the "L"'s. The idea of a 70-200 4L or 2.8L is certainly tempting, just not at the price right now.

briguynyc said:

Thanks to all for the feedback. In buying these two lenses, I most likely would put the 18-135 into reserve and just carry the two new lenses, or a single lens depending on what I'm going out to shoot.

briguynyc said:

I agree 100% with Gatorowl's recommendation. I owned a 70-300 and was not happy. I replaced it with a 70-200L F4 IS, and have been more than happy with it. Save you money and get the 55-250 for now, and pick up the L when you can.

Click to expand...

Is there any sharpness concerns with the 55-250 especially in the 200-250 range? I know with the 18-135 I have sharpness issues at the extremes, and I'm wondering if this is even worse with the 55-250. (Maybe it's me, but it almost seems the 55-250 is too cheap compared to the others)

Click to expand...

have a look at tests at photozone.de

briguynyc said:

briguynyc said:

Regarding the 15-85 and 17-55, I have the latter. That being said, I would recommend the former for you. As an everyday walkaround and travel lens, the 15-85 offers a nice FL range and IQ package that would be hard to beat.

Click to expand...

I'm tending to agree with this, and do believe that the image quality from the 15-85 should be sharper than the 18-135 from what I've read. It will also be nice to gain the 15-18 range for nature/architecture shots.

One day... I'll make the plunge into the "L"'s. The idea of a 70-200 4L or 2.8L is certainly tempting, just not at the price right now.

Click to expand...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

briguynyc said:

I am however concerned on the telephoto side about not having a faster lens.

Click to expand...

If the subject isn't moving then the IS of the 55-250 will work wonders. If you're trying to stop fast motion the 70-200 f4 (either in IS or non IS versions) will double your shutter speed. Sigma also do a 100-300 f4; I own a copy and it's great, if big.

briguynyc said:

• How is the quality of the 70-300 compared to the 55-250?

Click to expand...

Pretty much the same. Pixel peep and the -300 edges it. I, and almost everyone else, will recommend the 55-250. The 70-300 just isn't worth considering given the bargain of the 55-250. You might also consider the Tamron 70-300 VC, though if you will be saving up for a replacement you might as well go with the bargain 55-250 - it's so light and compact that it'll still have a role even when you've got a big, fast telephoto lens.

briguynyc said:

I'm tending to agree with this, and do believe that the image quality from the 15-85 should be sharper than the 18-135 from what I've read. It will also be nice to gain the 15-18 range for nature/architecture shots.

One day... I'll make the plunge into the "L"'s. The idea of a 70-200 4L or 2.8L is certainly tempting, just not at the price right now.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I own three L lenses, and when I was considering buying a general purpose walk around zoom, I considered the Ls (17-40, 24-70 and 24-105) as well as the 15-85, and concluded that the 15-85 was better suited to a crop-sensor camera than any of the Ls, and gives me just as good or better IQ. So be happy with your 15-85 (if you decide to go that way), and stop pining for an L--at least in this focal length range.

I'v had the 10-22 for a couple of weeks now and I'm actually really enjoying the overlap with my 15-85. Its ment far fewer changes when I have both than the 10-22 and 24-105L combo I'v often seen recommended would have and ment I can often get away with one of the two much of the time with no kit bag.

Up to the indivudal I spose but if those benefits appeal to you then I'd say don't hold back on the 15-85 because you think you might get an UWA or telephoto in the future.

briguynyc said:

I've had the Canon T1i w/ the 18-135 lens for about 18 months, and am very impressed by the camera. I do feel it's time to upgrade the lens however, as I've gotten into editing the photos more, and am noticing the softness and so forth in the 18-135.

Click to expand...

The best place to start is to do a survey of the EXIF data on your recorded pictures. Find your most commonly used focal lengths (or focal length ranges). If you are constantly bumping up against the wide (18mm) end of the 18-135, you might consider going wider. If you like that focal length especially, perhaps you might even consider a prime lens. For example, I have a TS-E 17mm, which I use very rarely right now but which is about as good as lenses get at that focal length. However, this is probably outside your price range (but it is an option all the same).

The one problem with going to multiple lenses is, of course, that you will need to carry more and you will need also to lose time switching lenses. It's true regardless of whether you carry prime lenses or multiple zooms. Therefore, it's worth considering that you might be skilled enough with framing different images at the same focal length to get something back in quality.

Personally, I'm not sure primes always make a huge difference - I've had plenty of disappointing images from my 17mm TS-E, and not just because of the manual focus - and you will want to consider in what conditions you want more sharpness. If you aren't pleased by the results of the entire image, viewed at once, then a new lens sounds fair (though technique problems would be the first thing I would look at). If you are looking at the "raw pixels" at 100% magnification on your monitor screen in hopes of seeing more detail on wildlife - say insects, flowers, or birds and woodland mammals - the problem is using the wrong lens for the application. The point is, of course, that it's very easy to be disappointed when looking at something 100% when the focus really should be on the whole image. Pictures on Flickr, for example, are almost always really just thumbnail sized compared to the original.

Additionally, have you experimented with stopping down the 18-135 when possible? I've had a Sigma telephoto zoom (120-400) and I've gotten much better results at 400mm when I've stopped down - a noticeable, if not earth-shattering, difference.