Lens recommendation to replace 18-135mm IS

[DeusInvictus7]

Hey everyone,

My first post here, been reading and researching a lot and I really can't make up my mind, so I thought I'd throw the question out there and see what the response is.

I want to replace my kit 18-135mm IS lens with something that is better quality optically. Ever since I bought my 100mm L Macro, I've been spoiled by the sharpness, even for portraits and short telephoto shots.

I've been looking at lots of different lenses to upgrade to, since I will be selling the 18-135 shortly to help fund the new purchase. I've been looking at the following lenses:

1. Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
2. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
3. Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
4. Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

Outside of macro shooting, which is so far my favorite, I want to get into street and short range photography, as well as landscape (not as often though). My current camera is a 60D, so I realize that the first option will be the tightest on the short end since it isn't so wide on a crop sensor. That's why I was looking at the other three. From your guys' experience, which would be the best all around lens? Or heck, should I be looking at prime lenses? I've been thinking of getting the new 40mm pancake just to see what a standard prime would be like since it's pretty cheap.

Help me out!

Thanks

 

[preppyak]

Based on what you'd like to shoot, I'd say the 17-55 is a good bet. Between that and the 100L you have a decent range covered for street and people stuff. And the 17 would cover the occasional landscape, where if you really get into it, you'd find yourself wanting wider than any of the lenses mentioned anyway.

If you think you'll move to full-frame in the near future (3-6 months), then the 24-105 would do just as well as the 17-55, since it'd give you more reach, and you won't likely miss the difference between 17 and 24 for street stuff. But, if you're sticking with the 60D for a while, the f/2.8 is better off

 

[DeusInvictus7]

Thanks for that reply. I don't expect to upgrade to full frame for another 3-4 years probably, since I won't have that kind of money until after school's over.

The 17-55 looks really good, they only thing really holding me back from that right now is the price. It's about $200-400 CAD more than any of the other options...The 15-85 is the cheapest, then the 17-40, 24-105, then the 17-55.

 

[preppyak]

The 17-55 looks really good, they only thing really holding me back from that right now is the price. It's about $200-400 CAD more than any of the other options...The 15-85 is the cheapest, then the 17-40, 24-105, then the 17-55.

Yeah. The 15-85 is a nice lens, but, I'm not sure you'd see a big improvement over the 18-135. And since you are working in natural light, the f/2,8 over f/4 can be a big advantage.

Have you looked at the focal ranges you use the most with your current lens? There are programs that show you it, and I think you can find it in Lightroom as well if you use that. That may show that you need the wide end (so 15mm or 17mm), or that you use the middle range more, and thus the 24-105 would be fine. Or, you may find you use 2 or 3 focal length ranges a lot, and a few primes (20-28mm, 50mm) would cover you better since you already have the 100mm

 

[DeusInvictus7]

I actually just did that sorting thing to see which focal lengths I use the most...and I actually use the 17-23 range the most. Granted, I haven't done that much street stuff yet so most of my stuff now is wilderness (from a camping trip) and going to parks around town. I use 18-23 more than 24-39, then 56-100 (Not including Macro shots), and 40-55 gets the least amount of use, at least judging from the 1000 photo sample size I used.

With that kind of data, and the price difference. Probably the 17-40L might not be a bad choice for me, since it's quite a bit cheaper than the 17-55.

 

[Random Orbits]

I actually just did that sorting thing to see which focal lengths I use the most...and I actually use the 17-23 range the most. Granted, I haven't done that much street stuff yet so most of my stuff now is wilderness (from a camping trip) and going to parks around town. I use 18-23 more than 24-39, then 56-100 (Not including Macro shots), and 40-55 gets the least amount of use, at least judging from the 1000 photo sample size I used.

With that kind of data, and the price difference. Probably the 17-40L might not be a bad choice for me, since it's quite a bit cheaper than the 17-55.

17-55 is a better choice especially when you mention that you won't be going FF for 3-4 years. The 17-55 is shaper wide open than the 17-40 and is a stop faster, which is more critical for indoor ambients and shallower DOFs. Another option is to get the 15-85 and a Sigma 30 f/1.4. The focal length range of the 15-85 is nice but is a bit slower than the 17-55. The 30 f/1.4 would give you low light capability for street and a shallower DOF.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

17-55 is a better choice especially when you mention that you won't be going FF for 3-4 years. The 17-55 is shaper wide open than the 17-40 and is a stop faster, which is more critical for indoor ambients and shallower DOFs. Another option is to get the 15-85 and a Sigma 30 f/1.4. The focal length range of the 15-85 is nice but is a bit slower than the 17-55. The 30 f/1.4 would give you low light capability for street and a shallower DOF.

Yeah those are the reasons the 17-55 was on my list in the first place.

Are there any third party lenses from Sigma or Tamron that are as sharp as the 17-55 but for cheaper? The cheapest price I can find for the 17-55 was $990+taxes CAD.

The option of going with the 15-85 and the 30 is a bit more than $1300, so I'm not too sure about that option, but prime lenses are definitely what I want to go towards in the future. I just want a zoom which can be my walkaround lens.

 

[Random Orbits]

The option of going with the 15-85 and the 30 is a bit more than $1300, so I'm not too sure about that option, but prime lenses are definitely what I want to go towards in the future. I just want a zoom which can be my walkaround lens.

The non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is pretty highly rated. The VC version is known to be softer. Check out the reviews on www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

The non-VC version of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is pretty highly rated. The VC version is known to be softer. Check out the reviews on www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews.

Thanks for that recommendation! The price difference is huge between the Tamron and the Canon, about $550. I really don't think IS/USM is worth that much.

That Tamron might be the one, at least for now. I want to try out some prime lenses at some point other than my 100mm. Since I'm saving a lot, I may even get a 50mm 1.4 as well lol

 

[robbymack]

considering you won't get much for a used 18-135 I'd probably just keep it, it would be a handy travel lens, or for the day you just want to try to cover everything and not bother switch lenses. To your point though, of the lens you mentioned Id say get the 17-55 2.8. You'll see a huge upgrade in quality and it will be very handy indoors, granted f2.8 isn't that fast for low light indoors with moving subjects, but it's quite a bit better than you currently have. The 100 macro could also be used for low light, but indoors it's likely a little long.

 

[DeusInvictus7]

considering you won't get much for a used 18-135 I'd probably just keep it, it would be a handy travel lens, or for the day you just want to try to cover everything and not bother switch lenses. To your point though, of the lens you mentioned Id say get the 17-55 2.8. You'll see a huge upgrade in quality and it will be very handy indoors, granted f2.8 isn't that fast for low light indoors with moving subjects, but it's quite a bit better than you currently have. The 100 macro could also be used for low light, but indoors it's likely a little long.

I'm getting 250 for the kit lens, so that will help cut the price down. If I end up with the Tamron, it'll cut the price in half. I don't shoot in dark environments that often, mostly daytime shooting.

 

[unadog]

From your list:

24-105

A lot of serious photographers and video people choose that as their go to lens.


Personally, as a pro I would say the 24-70. As a fashion and studio photographer, I used that 85% of the time, even with 7 L's and 14 total lenses available.Then add the 70-200. That is a basic, must have kit for a pro.

Or: Wait and pop $2,300 for the 24-70 II. That lens will be killer.

Good luck. FWIW, I didn't have time to read the other posts in the thread, so not dissing any counter opinions.

Cheers!
Michael

 

[DeusInvictus7]

From your list:

24-105

A lot of serious photographers and video people choose that as their go to lens.


Personally, as a pro I would say the 24-70. As a fashion and studio photographer, I used that 85% of the time, even with 7 L's and 14 total lenses available.Then add the 70-200. That is a basic, must have kit for a pro.

Or: Wait and pop $2,300 for the 24-70 II. That lens will be killer.

Good luck. FWIW, I didn't have time to read the other posts in the thread, so not dissing any counter opinions.

Cheers!
Michael

I actually reevaluated my photo library and deleted a bunch of crap pictures, overall, for me the 24-105 range actually puts out more good looking photos than at the wide end.

I think I've decided on getting the 24-105. Not having f/2.8 doesn't bother me that much, and having the extra reach will be handy.

If I really end up wanting a fast lens, I'll just get a 50 or a 35 1.4 or something down the road. Christmas presents!

 

[SteenerMe]

Great choice! The 24-105 is my most used lens on the 7D and 5D3. But if youve never had a fast lens youd be doing yourself a favor to grab a 1.4 or even 1.8 lens. It will open up a whole new world of photography for you.

 

[Rocky]

You have mentioned most of your picture are taken with 18-23mm. Why do you want to replace your 18-135 with a 24-105?? 24 mm on 60D is 38.4mm equivalent. It will be way too narrow cityscape and even landscape. I have a 17-40mm. It has been my main lens for the past 7 years and I really like it. My main interest is cityscape and landscape. I wish that I have a 17-55 f2.8 IS instead (when I bought my 17-40, the 18-55 f2.8 IS has not in production)

 

[Dylan777]

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS is a MUST have lens for crop. This lens is SHARP

 

[Akhiel]

I have got 18-135mm as a kit lens with 7D. Before this I had the 40D together with 17-85mm and later on I purchase the 17-55 f2.8 IS. My findings after a year: about 80% I use the 18-135mm. In critical situations without enough natural light I sometime use the 17-55 f2.8 with the speedlight 580ex, but the 18-135mm would do still a fine job. The 18-135mm is according to my findings one of the most under estimated lenses of canon. Its great performance had surprised me again and again.
In case of full frame body I would certainly prefer the 24-105mm as the walk around lens. In case of little light, for example a dance show with a lot of artificial color spotlights, it is not a guarantee that a f2.8 lens with 7D would do magic without using flash. In this case only the 5D MarkII or III can tackle the noise. A f2.8 lens will help, but you will than loose depth. Only the front dancers would appear sharp.
It's hard to give a straight answer for your situation. It depends on so many factors. Make sure, what situation you face the most. Is the lens always the key-factor? I doubt that. Be sure what you can solve with your camera settings and post processing (e.g. lightroom, etc). Than decide what investment would be worth it.
In situation where I get paid for and to my estimation I need 5D Mark II/III and L lenses like 70-200mm f2.8 IS II, then I make use of camera/lens rental services. In that case my own 7D and lenses functions as backup.
Succes!

 

[DeusInvictus7]

You have mentioned most of your picture are taken with 18-23mm. Why do you want to replace your 18-135 with a 24-105?? 24 mm on 60D is 38.4mm equivalent. It will be way too narrow cityscape and even landscape. I have a 17-40mm. It has been my main lens for the past 7 years and I really like it. My main interest is cityscape and landscape. I wish that I have a 17-55 f2.8 IS instead (when I bought my 17-40, the 18-55 f2.8 IS has not in production)

I reevaluated my shots and realistically, now that I have trimmed it down to photos I really want to keep, 17-55 range the same amount of photos as the 24-105 range. My reasoning for getting the 24-105 was that it is easier (cheaper), at least here in Canada to get a UWA zoom/prime than it is a zoom in the 55+ range. The Tokina 12-24 lens would be something I'd be looking into, which runs about $550, where as a good zoom over 55mm, like the 70-200L's, are all over $900.

 

[M.ST]

If you have a APS-C-Camera buy the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. It´s not an L lens, but very good.

After buying the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS go for the EF 70-300 IS (L).

With the mentioned lenses you can shot 80 percent of all possible shots.

If you change to full frame get the 16-35 II (or 14-24 if Canon launch this lens), 24-70 II and the 70-200 II IS.

 

[brianleighty]

Alright so just reading your post real quick I thought 24 105. But then someone pointed out you already have the 100 macro IS which is a great lens BTW. So as long as you're willing to switch lenses to get that 100mm range then you probably could go with the 17-55. I've rented both that and the Tamron 17-50 VC and non-VC versions. I ended up buying the non-vc model. The VC version was definitely less sharp than the Canon and non-VC. Some could argue the Canon is SLIGHTLY better than the non-VC but I think the biggest difference between these two probably comes down to the auto focus. The Tamron's isn't that great but it'll get the job done. I don't use this lens as much since going full frame but when I did use it, unless I wanted the 2.8 depth of field I'd stop it down 4.0 which sharpens it up a lot. If I was in your position, I'd go for the Tamron. It's a really nice piece of glass for the price. If you're thinking long term then the 24-105 is also excellent and obviously has IS and better focus system. I'd buy an ultra wide angle to make up the loss in wide angle shots. I bought the Sigma 10-20 for around $420 and have been really happy with it overall. Either lens will be MUCH higher quality than the 18-135.