Done with the kit lenses ... opening new chapter

Leftyplayer · Jun 17, 2011

I've been playing with my Canon kit lenses (15-55, 55-200) for a year now (more recently, added a 50mm 1.8).

I'm ready to move on. Mostly, I find myself changing lenses way too often. I do street photography and, from one sec to the next, may need to go wide or long - with lenses that cut off right at 55mm, it's frustrating. So, I'm looking at the Canon 15-85 f3.5, 18-135mm f3.5, 18-200mm f3.5, 24-105mm f4, and Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 for 'will-only-bring-one lense' street situations. Are any of these not an improvement on the kit lenses I mentioned? (other than consolidating that middle range within one lense). Are the price differences related to the quality differences?

Would love your thoughts, feedback, comparisons on all these lenses. Any other lense I should be considering? I have no problem with third party products - should I? Once I do a bit of computer research, I plan to rent the final contenders to test out first hand.

p.s. sharp matters. sometimes soft is nice, depending on intention, but I can add that later. Mostly, I like tack-sharp. (just in case this affects your recommendation). Lightweight gear is a plus also, though not at the cost of quality.

tyler_h · Jun 17, 2011

24-105 is the only with a constant aperture, and the L tag is indicative of build quality. It is also very good optically. It won't give you the wide angle though so don't forget to consider that.

18-135 and 18-200 are larger zoom and hence have a trade off of lower image quality (typically) than a short zoom. Don't know on the Sigma.

If you are considering the 24-105 why not the 24-70mm f/2.8L as well

Robin Usagani · Jun 17, 2011

24-105 f/4L for the winner. You should be able to find one used for $850. I really think that is the "ultimate" all around lens for a canon.

Hardrock · Jun 17, 2011

I think if you buy the 18-135 or 18-200 you will regret it later and end up buying the 24-105L. Plus the 24-105 is faster all the way through the focal range and is going to be the sharpest of the 3! Hope this helps.

TiCoyote · Jun 17, 2011

The 24-105L will give you better IQ than either of those lenses, but it's not really going to solve your problem. If you want a broad range zoom, you can read reviews on Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera and Lens Reviews at The-Digital-Picture.com. However, the real issue is that you're taking opportunistic shots. A lot of street photogs use a 50mm, or a 35mm if they're shooting with an APS-C. They try to anticipate and compose shots in their heads, and then be in the correct location. It's the difference between planning the work and choosing the correct tool vs. waiting until the inspiration strikes and grabbing for the tool.

Leftyplayer · Jun 17, 2011

Good food for thought ... I think the main factor in hesitating on the 24-105 is that, as I review my focal length tendencies in Lightroom, I do a lot of work in the 18-24 range ... well more like 18-70 range .... then not much until I get up in the 250+ range. Seems like most days I'm happy to get close and personal ... then there are the shy, keep a distance days LOL.

In any case, I worry 24mm might not be wide enough. But I know I can't base this just on focal lengths, since a lot more goes into a high quality lense.

Hardrock · Jun 17, 2011

Just be aware that other than the 24-105L the other two lens aren't much better than the kit lens. Don't get me wrong the quality is decent but nothing like a nice prime like the 35,50,85,135 or even a L zoom. I personally would not waste money on one of those lens unless that is all you can afford or you just want a small travel lens.

Leftyplayer · Jun 17, 2011

I think if you buy the 18-135 or 18-200 you will regret it later and end up buying the 24-105L.

This is likely an amateurish question for sure, but gotta somewhere ... why is the 24-105L considered better than, say, the 18-135 when the former only opens to f/4 (as opposed to 3.5 - not a big difference, but still) and has a broader focal range? Clearly, it's all in the "L". When I google, though, all it tells me is that the 'L' is for 'Luxury' and means a steardier build. So, is it better in terms of IQ or just in terms of the length's sturdiness. If it's about image quality, could someone explain a bit of the technical differences that make what would seem, based on the title numbers along (i.e., f/4 vs. f3.5 and 18-135 vs. 24-105), a lesser lense actually be a better one.

Hardrock · Jun 17, 2011

Ok the 18-135 is actually f3.5 at 18 but at 135 its f5.6. It is a variable aperature zoom where as the 24-105 is a constant f4 from 24-105 yes you lose a 1/3 of a stop at the wide end but gain a whole stop at the long end granted the 24-105 isnt as wide or long. Hope this makes sense? Also the 24-105 is an L which means its the best they offer as far as shaprness ,build quality , focus speed, quiteness, and what ever else. The only other zoom that Canon makes that would compare to the 24-105 is the 24-70 its one stop faster but you lose IS and 35mm of length. Hope this helps.

Robin Usagani · Jun 17, 2011

The glass is so much higher quality. Plus to make these zoom length work together, they have to use several glass elements. The L lens has larger diameter so the glasses arent as curvy. The cheaper glasses are so much smaller in diameter so the glass elements are curvier. Just google the lenses you want. Plenty of people have tested the image quality already. It is confusing but if you buy an L, you get the best.

Leftyplayer · Jun 17, 2011

The difference in image quality is really obvious in the comparisons made at the-digital-picture.com (just was checking it out). Glad to now understand why that is - thanks Hardrock and Schwettylens.

Is there a lense in the quality range of the 24-105 L series that goes wider than 24mm? I don't mind losing the longer range, but I do mind losing the wider range (though, the 24-105 goes on top of my list from the lenses originally listed, as I could see that the quality is markedly different). Any third party guys I should look at that compare in IQ and are wider?

Robin Usagani · Jun 17, 2011

24mm is pretty darn wide for a full frame. Some of the lenses you posted only fit crop sensor (EF-S).

tyler_h · Jun 17, 2011

Schwettylens said:
24mm is pretty darn wide for a full frame. Some of the lenses you posted only fit crop sensor (EF-S).

His current lenses say crop.

To get wider 17-55mm f/2.8 but then you'll have the same 88mm cut off.

Hardrock · Jun 17, 2011

The 17-40L is a fantastic lens and very sharp it will actually look more like a 27mm on a crop body so take your camera and set your lens to 27 and see if that is wide enough. Also canon makes a 10-22 which is for a crop sensor and a 16-35 f2.8 for a FF camera. I use a 17-40L on a 50D and love it for me its plenty wide enough and does not have a ton of distortion at 17.