Lens Advice: 2 Mid-Level Primes or 1 L-Series Wide Angle Zoom

YardYeti wrote:

Will the image from the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM be that much better then my kit lens (EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS)? Also, can you explain better why the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM would not be good for cropped. i thought it would give a good range for 1.6 like a 28-60. Are you saying I would want something that allows for a wider picture? You mention that it is not a crop lens, what specifies that it is not. This will be my first lens purchase, and I cant afford to choose incorectly.

The 15-85 will probably give you a noticeably better image quality than the 18-135 --- I personally haven't done my own comparison.  I have compared my 17-55/2.8, a 17-200, and a 15-85.  In that comparison, the 17-55 and 15-85 were noticeably sharper and with better color contrast than the 17-200 even when viewing with the DSLR's rear LCD, magnified.  Not as sure if you got one of the newer 18-135 STM models --- definitely do your own tests first.

Given the cost and size of the 17-40 vs. the 17-55 (and I do own both lens), I don't think the 17-40 offers any significant advantages over the 17-55 beyond it works on full frame and has weather seals.  In exchange you are looking at lack of IS (which I found extremely handy in my standard zoom), lack of f/2.8 constant (when compared to the 17-55), and a significant lack of reach --- 40mm to 55mm is huge in my opinion.  I honestly feel my overall enjoyment and ability to grow would be hampered by going with a 17-40 vs. a 17-55/2.8 or 15-85 (or one of the Sigma or Tamron equivalents).

Will the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM offer that much better of a picture then my kit lens? If so, i will just need to save up some more cash and go this route. Would I want to keep my kit lense with this? I cant afford the 10-22 and 17-55 now.

My 17-55/2.8 definitely offered better picture quality than both of my old 18-55 kit lens (the one that came with my Digital Rebel and the first generation 18-55 IS model).  I would argue that you try both the 17-55/2.8 and the 15-85 IS, plus look into the Sigma and Tamron offerings.

Personally I don't use my 10-22 that much because I really don't shoot that wide that often.  However, when running around the streets of New York, my 10-22 got the most use.  So I would guess you can hold off on the 10-22.

Here's how my decision went:  I had a 18-55 kit, 17-85 IS and 75-300.  The 17-55/2.8 IS just came out (no 15-85 yet) and I had to decide between it and a 24-105L.  I borrowed a friend's 24-105 and rented a 17-55 and found that I loved the 105mm end of the 24-105, but, really missed 18mm the wide end (was swapping too much between the 24-105 and the 18-55 kit).  So it was really easy to go 17-55.  However, I'm giving up on quality images at 105mm and so I upgraded the 75-300 to a 70-200/4L shortly there after.   In other words, my favorite combo is the 17-55/2.8 and 70-200/4L.

I think the 55-250 is better than my old 75-300 and so you do have more affordable options than I did.

Had the 15-85 IS been available, it would probably have been the better choice for me and where I was at in my photography expertise at the time.