Buying new lens - 17-40,17-55,24-105?

So I'm looking to buy at least one new lens and have been reading B&H, Amazon, and this forum for reviews and suggestions but I'm a bit stuck.

What I have:

Body: Canon Rebel T3i

Lens:

• 18-55mm (kit)
• 55-250mm
• 40mm
• 10-22mm

Flash: Speedlite 430ex II

Rented:

• 100-400mm (nice lens; no everyday use for me, not even once every 6 months)
• 50mm (the 40mm lens were on sale so I went with those instead)

I am looking to replace the body a couple years down the road, not sure whether I'll be going full frame on staying with a crop.

Looking at (only Canon):

• 17-40mm
• 17-55mm
• 24-105mm
• 15-85mm (after reading some posts here)

Price Range: I'm looking to stay around $1000 (I believe the 24-105mm is pretty much the upper limit in my budget right now). At this point, I prefer to stay with Canon lens and am somewhat willing to pay extra to do so.

Based on what I've read so far, all 4 are popular lens with the 24-105mm appearing to be the most popular. I've also read comments that the 17-40mm is probably not best suited for a crop body and that the 15-85mm is probably more suited. I am loving the L series lens (so pricey!).

I've been using the 10-22mm as somewhat of a walkaround and I love it so far with the exception of losing the distance and the occasional distortion when I'm not careful with framing my shots.

Primary Use: My primary intent of the new lens that I buy is for a general purpose walk around lens to replace the 18-55mm. I have a tendency use my camera in low/poor light situations.

Timeline: I'm looking to buy something no later than the end of April.

I think reading so many reviews and comparisons has temporarily overwhelmed me. Before doing so much reading into this, I thought I knew what I wanted to get but now I'm stuck.

Any suggestions/recommendations?

Thanks

I have the 24-105, the 17-40, the 24-70 II...

All but the last one are pretty useless on crop sensors. And the 24-70 doesn't have IS.

The ranges are really designed for FF. I've stuck everything on my 60D more than once. Meh.

My Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS is sharper than the 17-40 and 24-105 and much faster. I chose it over the 17-55, and feel it's better in many ways. But I'd highly suggest the 17-55 over any of the L lenses. The range is great, it's sharp, it's got IS and it's fast. The only downside is it's an EF-S. It's also one of the best lenses Canon makes.

A great second choice is the 15-85, but it's variable aperture, and you seem to have it covered elsewhere. For a single lens solution though - it's tough to beat.

herocertified wrote:

So I'm looking to buy at least one new lens and have been reading B&H, Amazon, and this forum for reviews and suggestions but I'm a bit stuck.

What I have:

Body: Canon Rebel T3i

Lens:

• 18-55mm (kit)
• 55-250mm
• 40mm
• 10-22mm

Flash: Speedlite 430ex II

Rented:

• 100-400mm (nice lens; no everyday use for me, not even once every 6 months)
• 50mm (the 40mm lens were on sale so I went with those instead)

I am looking to replace the body a couple years down the road, not sure whether I'll be going full frame on staying with a crop.

Looking at (only Canon):

• 17-40mm
• 17-55mm
• 24-105mm
• 15-85mm (after reading some posts here)

Price Range: I'm looking to stay around $1000 (I believe the 24-105mm is pretty much the upper limit in my budget right now). At this point, I prefer to stay with Canon lens and am somewhat willing to pay extra to do so.

Based on what I've read so far, all 4 are popular lens with the 24-105mm appearing to be the most popular. I've also read comments that the 17-40mm is probably not best suited for a crop body and that the 15-85mm is probably more suited. I am loving the L series lens (so pricey!).

I've been using the 10-22mm as somewhat of a walkaround and I love it so far with the exception of losing the distance and the occasional distortion when I'm not careful with framing my shots.

Primary Use: My primary intent of the new lens that I buy is for a general purpose walk around lens to replace the 18-55mm. I have a tendency use my camera in low/poor light situations.

Timeline: I'm looking to buy something no later than the end of April.

I think reading so many reviews and comparisons has temporarily overwhelmed me. Before doing so much reading into this, I thought I knew what I wanted to get but now I'm stuck.

Any suggestions/recommendations?

Thanks

I had a 24-105L on a 7D and its now on a 5D III and find it to be a very useful and competent all-rounder (especially for travel or situations where chopping and changing lenses isn't ideal). Its also a 77mm thread so if you have filters for your 10-22 (if my recollection of that being a 77mm thread is correct) then you can use them on both.

As you noted, a 17-40 is probably wasted on a crop given you already have an UWA in your bag (albeit an EF-S one).  Chances are by the time you change up to FF it'll be on a Mk II by then anyway (its one of the older lenses in the L line-up), and you'll get decent money back for your 10-22 if you look after it.

And if you want to save a bit of money, there is always a healthy trade in 'white box' 24-105Ls either from dealers or people who've bought kits and moved the lens on.  You should easily be able to get one new/nearly new for a lot less than RRP.

To receive the "L" designation, the lens must cover full frame. NO EF-S lens can be an "L".

Now that we have cleared that up, there are two fine choices, slightly different

1. EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5 - 5.6 IS. This is really a wonderful walkaround lens and is a great one-lens solution for travel, landscapes, low light when subject is still (I have hand held landscape shots as low as 0.3 sec and get occasional keepers, so the image stabilization is great). 15-85 is a really generous amount of zoom. I am very glad I bought this lens.

2. EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 constant aperture. This is slightly more expensive due to the extra speed. I haven't used this one, but it is regarded as the top-of-the-line general purpose APS-C zoom. If you expect to try to shoot moving subjects in dim light, this is the lens to get.

Because you have a 10-22mm, you might consider the 17-55 f/2.8 if you can swing the extra money. f/2.8 can be handy.

www.the-digital-picture.com has good reviews of Canon gear.

I would go for the 17-55 [ I did ]

My most used is the 17-55 - then the 10-22 , next would be the 70-200 .

There is a lot to be said for staying with the 77 mm . Your hand gets used to it . Hoods and filters .

Based on your camera (APS-C, and no indication you want to move that many price brackets up to FF in the near future) and your usage in low light, the 17-55 is really the only choice that actually meets your criteria.

The new Sigma 18-35 could be worth considering here too if you don't mind the limited range.

I've owned all 4 that are mentioned at one time or another on a 7D and found that the 24-105 was the most useful. Since you've got the ultra wide end covered with the 10-22, I'd sell the 18-55 and go for the 24-105. It's broad focal range and constant f/4 make it a very useful walk around lens. You can find them brand new from sellers splitting up kits for around $600 like new on FM http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1269587/0?keyword=24-105#12093396

If you really need the large aperture in a limited range then the 17-55 is appealing.......

The 10-22mm lens is a very good lens & super sharp. The 18-55mm is almost as sharp as 15-85mm.

I own 10-22mm and 15-85mm. IMHO, the 15-85mm is NOT good optically. Its good. But not really good enough. Corners are not sharp. Excessive distortion. But a good IS & nice build quality. It is also a slow lens with variable aperture. Just because someone owns this lens and they like it, it does not turn out to be a great lens.

If you will move to full frame, then choosing the 17-40mm or 24-105mm won't affect u in any ways. You can check out flickr or other photo sharing sites for 17-40mm/24-105mm with crop cameras and you will find excellent tack sharp photos.

If you decide to stay with crop for some more time, Canon 17-55mm IS USM, sigma 18-35mm f1.8 & sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS are good choices.

You will get a lot of different opinions from these forums. The answer for you depends on what you find is your major limitation with the lenses you currently have - most notably the 18-55. In the lenses you currently own you have a full range of focal lengths.

If the problem is low light, you will get some benefit from the 17-55 with its wider maximum aperture, but if you are getting a couple of stops at best with this.  If, like me, this limitation is found in indoors pictures of people, then a good external flash is a more beneficial solution. If outdoors, you will find the wider aperture useful for discrete subjects, but of course this will not be useful if your subjects require greater depth of focus.

If the problem is focal length range, then the 17-55 (3.2 X zoom) does not help and the 15-85 (5.6X) is much better. As you have been using the 10-22 as a walkabout lens then I suspect that you may find the extra 3mm in the wide end of the 15-85 a major improvement on the 18mm of your kit lens.  The 85mm long end is very good on your APS-C sensor. It is also lighter than the 17-55 (which I have not owned).  Weight is an issue on cameras such as the "Rebel" series with smaller grips, as heavy lenses create much more work for the intrinsic muscles of your right hand in counteracting the forwards tip.

I started with a 28-135 from my film camera on my 400D (Rebel XTi) - which was very restrictive at the wide end, and added a 10-22 underneath this.  I then found myself constantly changing lenses as the mid-20s focal length on APS-C is right in the middle of general shooting range for me, and was totally unworkable when out and about with young kids. The 15-85 was the ideal lens for my requirements. When I looked at my use of this lens in a search in Lightroom, I found that 15mm was my most common focal length at 25% of my shots!  20% were at 85mm and the rest scattered in between.

If you bought a 24-105 to use on an APS-C sensor you would likely suffer from this problem also, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. As somebody who appears to like the wider end, it seems that you would not be advised to get the 24-105. If you buy a full frame camera in the future you can get this then as a kit.

The only reason to get the 17-40 is that you may wish to buy a "full frame" camera in a couple of years time.  If you choose this course, you will still be restricted on the long end of your walkabout lens for the next two years, and you may not change sensors at that time anyway! I recently bought this for my 6D to go under the 24-105 as I missed the wide angle I had with the 10-22 on my old camera.  The 17-40 is great for me on full frame as I use it for landscapes where I am generally at f/11 or thereabouts so the corner softness at wider apertures has not been a problem. However I could not use it as a walkabout on the 400D as the ~2X zoom would be too limiting.

However your usage may be different to mine......

Sigma 18-35F1.8

Sharper at f1.8 than the Canon at f2.8
Source: DP Review

Dont forget to check the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8. I  am not quite sure personally but I guess its the lens of the year according to many.

herocertified wrote:

So I'm looking to buy at least one new lens and have been reading B&H, Amazon, and this forum for reviews and suggestions but I'm a bit stuck.

What I have:

Body: Canon Rebel T3i

Lens:

• 18-55mm (kit)
• 55-250mm
• 40mm
• 10-22mm

Flash: Speedlite 430ex II

Rented:

• 100-400mm (nice lens; no everyday use for me, not even once every 6 months)
• 50mm (the 40mm lens were on sale so I went with those instead)

I am looking to replace the body a couple years down the road, not sure whether I'll be going full frame on staying with a crop.

Looking at (only Canon):

• 17-40mm
• 17-55mm
• 24-105mm
• 15-85mm (after reading some posts here)

Price Range: I'm looking to stay around $1000 (I believe the 24-105mm is pretty much the upper limit in my budget right now). At this point, I prefer to stay with Canon lens and am somewhat willing to pay extra to do so.

Based on what I've read so far, all 4 are popular lens with the 24-105mm appearing to be the most popular. I've also read comments that the 17-40mm is probably not best suited for a crop body and that the 15-85mm is probably more suited. I am loving the L series lens (so pricey!).

I've been using the 10-22mm as somewhat of a walkaround and I love it so far with the exception of losing the distance and the occasional distortion when I'm not careful with framing my shots.

Primary Use: My primary intent of the new lens that I buy is for a general purpose walk around lens to replace the 18-55mm. I have a tendency use my camera in low/poor light situations.

Timeline: I'm looking to buy something no later than the end of April.

I think reading so many reviews and comparisons has temporarily overwhelmed me. Before doing so much reading into this, I thought I knew what I wanted to get but now I'm stuck.

Any suggestions/recommendations?

Thanks

keep 10-22

Sell the 18-55, 55-250, 40.  Get $325

go to gear shop and buy SL1 with 18-55STM and 55-250STM for $725.

buy 35f2 IS for $550

you're in budget and better at every optic

When you want to upgrade to FF later, the Sigma 12-24 is a good one, even on APS-C 12mm is ultra wide angle and later on FF it is very wide. And good quality.

why the most in this thread prefer canon 17-55 over sigma and tamron 18-50

i saw  many threads said they are in the same iq and some said tamron is sharper than canon and the build quality are the same not good as L

so can you tell me why they prefer canon that are more pricy than any ef-s lanes

because i am planing to get sigma or tamron and want to know is there a big cons to make you pay more than 250$ for canon ?

thamer08 wrote:

why the most in this thread prefer canon 17-55 over sigma and tamron 18-50

i saw many threads said they are in the same iq and some said tamron is sharper than canon and the build quality are the same not good as L

so can you tell me why they prefer canon that are more pricy than any ef-s lanes

because i am planing to get sigma or tamron and want to know is there a big cons to make you pay more than 250$ for canon ?

Because the 17-55 is very very good.  I moved to 6D a few months ago but keep and use my 17-55 still on a 40D body - I had to buy a bigger camera bag but it is worth it.

The 250$ you are worried about is important when you have no cash. In which case you should probably not be buying any kind of new lens.  Otherwise you will amortise it over many years so the depreciation is more important than the cash outlay.  In the case of the 17-55, it will depreciate less than a Sigma or a Tamron.

that is the first lens i would recommend on a crop body for general purpose.

herocertified wrote:

So I'm looking to buy at least one new lens and have been reading B&H, Amazon, and this forum for reviews and suggestions but I'm a bit stuck.

What I have:

Body: Canon Rebel T3i

Lens:

• 18-55mm (kit)
• 55-250mm
• 40mm
• 10-22mm

Flash: Speedlite 430ex II

Rented:

• 100-400mm (nice lens; no everyday use for me, not even once every 6 months)
• 50mm (the 40mm lens were on sale so I went with those instead)

I am looking to replace the body a couple years down the road, not sure whether I'll be going full frame on staying with a crop.

Looking at (only Canon):

• 17-40mm
• 17-55mm
• 24-105mm
• 15-85mm (after reading some posts here)

Price Range: I'm looking to stay around $1000 (I believe the 24-105mm is pretty much the upper limit in my budget right now). At this point, I prefer to stay with Canon lens and am somewhat willing to pay extra to do so.

Based on what I've read so far, all 4 are popular lens with the 24-105mm appearing to be the most popular. I've also read comments that the 17-40mm is probably not best suited for a crop body and that the 15-85mm is probably more suited. I am loving the L series lens (so pricey!).

I've been using the 10-22mm as somewhat of a walkaround and I love it so far with the exception of losing the distance and the occasional distortion when I'm not careful with framing my shots.

Primary Use: My primary intent of the new lens that I buy is for a general purpose walk around lens to replace the 18-55mm. I have a tendency use my camera in low/poor light situations.

Timeline: I'm looking to buy something no later than the end of April.

I think reading so many reviews and comparisons has temporarily overwhelmed me. Before doing so much reading into this, I thought I knew what I wanted to get but now I'm stuck.

Any suggestions/recommendations?

Thanks

17-55

24-105 is too long.  I have both and I either use the 17-55 2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 is 2