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

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.

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.

This is my first time posting. You guys are amaizing. That link is great. Took me a fe minutes to figure it out, but it is night and day. The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens seems charper then the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Image Quality. Both blow my lens away, but to me it would be better to get the larger range with better quality shot. it is slower, but I do not plan on shooting in low light that often. Does this make sense?

YardYeti wrote:

I have a Canon EOS 60D and the lens that came with it as part of the kit, EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. I would like to start purchasing some additional gear as I will finally have some time to focus on learning to use this camera better. Through reading of books and a lot of posts on this forum, I have limited the list of lenses I am considering purchasing down to two choices. I considered a Telephoto Zoom, but since I can only afford the lower quality lenses in this class right now, I decided 135mm is adequate for what I shoot.

I generally just take candid’s of my children playing, or at events, and love to take travel photos (even when the travel is right around the corner. I do a lot of trail hiking and running and like to bring the camera to take shots of the remote locations. I am headed up to Maine soon with the family, and would like to purchase one of these options before then.

Choice 1: EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

I would not be considering this lens. Its showing its age. Apparently great colors and contrast and build quality, but lacking in the sharpness department. There are much better options for crop, and the 17-40F4 performs pretty bad on the corners on FF - especially at its wide end, and even when stopped down.

Choice 2: EF 28mm f/1.8 USM and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

I would consider the newer Canon 24F2.8IS and 28F2.8IS over the older Canon 28F1.8 because it not a great lens and its not cheap. You are going to have a hard time finding a prime that is truly wide for a crop camera and I think the zooms are a better alternative for crop to cover the wide end.

Other primes to consider are the 24LF1.4, Canon 35LF1.4, Canon 35F2IS, and Sigma 35Art F1.4.

I have never used a prime lens, but it is my understanding that they are sharper, generally faster, and crisper then most zoom lens options. With the 1.6 crop factor of the 60D, the 28mm should be close to the traditional 50 and the 50 more like an 80. My question is would getting the two mid level primes be better then purchasing one wide angle zoom L-Series lens? My thought would be to get the L-Series zoom and pickup the 50mm Prime at a later time. But I would really like some feedback from more experienced users.

Primes are great where you want to get shallow DOF or have a lighter set up, and a 24mm and 50mm on FF is often all I need. However, many of the best zooms are very close to the best primes these days. Normal zooms like the Canon 17-55F2.8 (for crop) and 24-70F2.8mkII (for FF) are top notch zooms.

Thank you in advance for feedback.

bhollis wrote:

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.

Yes, the 15-85 will give you a noticeably sharper image than your kit lens. See here.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=678&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=675&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

And it's also 3mm wider on the wide end, which is a more significant difference than you might think.

It's also a better choice on a crop than the 17-40L for the following reasons: equal or better IQ; much wider zoom range, and 4-stops of IS (vs. none on the 17-40).

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.

Yes, the 17-55 will also give you noticeably better IQ than your kit lens.

IMO, if you're going to go with a zoom, the EF-S 15-85 and EF-17-55 are your best choices on a crop. Go with the 17-55 if you need or want its faster aperture. Go with the 15-85 if you want its wider zoom range.

Good advice above.

Finally, although primes can be sharper than zooms, this isn't as true as it used to be. Modern zooms are quite sharp. The primary reason to go with primes, IMO, is that they tend to be faster--i.e., have wider max apertures. So if you need a very fast lens (faster than f/2.8) for lowlight shooting, or to give you very shallow depth of field, then a prime is probably the way to go. Bear in mind, though, that many of the more inexpensive primes aren't particularly sharp wide open and need to be stopped down some to give you a crisp image.

Size and weight is also big advantage for most primes.

Good luck with your decision.

Collett wrote:

Normal zooms like the Canon 17-55F2.8 (for crop) and 24-70F2.8mkII (for FF) are top notch zooms.

Thank you in advance for feedback.

Both of these are currently out of my price range. Should I save up for the 17-55F2.8 or is the EF-S 15-85 compriable?

YardYeti wrote:

Collett wrote:

Normal zooms like the Canon 17-55F2.8 (for crop) and 24-70F2.8mkII (for FF) are top notch zooms.

Thank you in advance for feedback.

Both of these are currently out of my price range. Should I save up for the 17-55F2.8 or is the EF-S 15-85 compriable?

I don't think you can go wrong with either of these. As B. Hollis said, it's just a matter of which is better for you - F2.8 or a wider zoom range. 2mm makes a big difference on the wide end if you want to do landscapes.

Personally, I would go for zoom to give you the range, and later pick up a fast prime like one of those I mentioned at some point for shallow DOF shots if you are in to that (not everyone is, but I am hooked on fast primes). F2.8 is not going to give you that much background blur/separation on a crop camera, so IMOHO that is where you want the fast prime.

YardYeti wrote:

I have a Canon EOS 60D and the lens that came with it as part of the kit, EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. I would like to start purchasing some additional gear as I will finally have some time to focus on learning to use this camera better. Through reading of books and a lot of posts on this forum, I have limited the list of lenses I am considering purchasing down to two choices. I considered a Telephoto Zoom, but since I can only afford the lower quality lenses in this class right now, I decided 135mm is adequate for what I shoot.

From what I heard the older regular EF-S 18-135 is not very sharp, and newer STM version is better. Nevertheless EF-S 18-135 is widely regarded as a kit lens, usually more super zoom, more compromises.

If you will stay on crop for a while, get one of these EF-S zoom,

10-22

17-55/2.8 IS or third party 17-50/2.8. I bought Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS and I like it.

I generally just take candid’s of my children playing, or at events, and love to take travel photos (even when the travel is right around the corner. I do a lot of trail hiking and running and like to bring the camera to take shots of the remote locations. I am headed up to Maine soon with the family, and would like to purchase one of these options before then.

Choice 1: EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

I used to own it and it actually pretty sharp on my 60D (even little sharper than Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS). Unless you're going to move to FF soon you're better to get (EF-S) 17-5X/2.8 IS/OS/VC, one stop faster and better range. 15-85 has very ideal range and has 24mm FF eq WA that could be a big deal but relative slow in tele-side. 10-20 UWA zoom is a very sharp zoom.

Choice 2: EF 28mm f/1.8 USM and EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

50/1.4 is pretty nice.  I'd suggest you to get newer 28/2.8 IS, or 35/2.0 IS that not only much sharper but have 'IS' although much more expensive.

I have never used a prime lens, but it is my understanding that they are sharper, generally faster, and crisper then most zoom lens options. With the 1.6 crop factor of the 60D, the 28mm should be close to the traditional 50 and the 50 more like an 80. My question is would getting the two mid level primes be better then purchasing one wide angle zoom L-Series lens? My thought would be to get the L-Series zoom and pickup the 50mm Prime at a later time. But I would really like some feedback from more experienced users.

In general it's true but not always.  Canon latest  zoom such as two F2.8 zoom are as sharp as many prime including L primes.  It's not harmful to collect some primes as they will also work on FF bodies if you move there.

Thank you in advance for feedback.

I am leaning towards the 15-85mm. I read the reviews i was sent to, and I see what you mean on speed vrs zoom. 17-55 gets better reviews, but at about $500 cost for prices I can find. Now I just need to find where to seel my kit lense and 3 filters I have.

I am leaning towards the 15-85. Im looking at places to try and sell or trade in my kit lens and filters and start the collection with this lens. If I can afford it or find a deal on the 17-55, I will jump on it, but for now I will be looking for the 15-85.

Nice set bhollis. A good copy of 15-85 is pretty sharp but I did hear some QC in this zoom. Roughly this is equivalent to 24-105L on Canon FF cameras, one walk-around lens solution.

I am leaning towards the EF-s 15-85mm. If I can get the 17-55 at a good price and trade my kit lens and 3 filters in, I will go that route.

I will research the 10-22 in future as well. I love to take landscape and with the crop, the wider would be an improvement. I have a limited budget, so any of these is an investment to me and they will be 1 at a time.

YardYeti wrote:

I am leaning towards the EF-s 15-85mm. If I can get the 17-55 at a good price and trade my kit lens and 3 filters in, I will go that route.

EF-S 15-85 and 17-55 each has pros and cons. You cannot go wrong with either one.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/06/10/First-impressions-shooting-with-the-sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-dc-hsm

new Sigma 18-35/1.8 super wide zoom is interesting but in short range. With that price/size, I'd move to FF with a F2.8 24-70 zoom instead unless you must stay in APS-C world that itself is nothing wrong.

I will research the 10-22 in future as well. I love to take landscape and with the crop, the wider would be an improvement. I have a limited budget, so any of these is an investment to me and they will be 1 at a time.

10-22 is the best UWA APS-C zoom in its class, better than Nikon or third party ones. It's very sharp and very wide.

I am going to purchase the 15-85 and the 10-22. I should be able to purchase both this summer. What would be a good telephoto lens to add that doesn't cost $2000.