Looking for a replacent for my standard kit zoom.

[SHaller]

I decided that I want to upgrade my canon 18-55 kit lens. I am decently satisfied with it and wasn't really planing in replacing it, but I decided that I want to start experimenting with filters. I didn't want to make a decent investment on filters for a lens that isn't going to stay with me for some time. I am looking to spend anywhere from $200-$350 on a used lens and want it to be at least 17 or 18mm on the wide end. I tend to only use my lens for the wide end. I really don't need it to be a amazing performer, but something that will be a step up from my 18-55 in the optics department. I was looking at the older version of the 17-85mm. Open to any sugestions

 

[Stephen.C]

Tamron 17-50 2.8...ill be picking one up this weekend to replace my kit lens that gets zero use because of its horrible ability anywhere near the sun.

 

[reznap]

I am looking to spend anywhere from $200-$350 on a used lens and want it to be at least 17 or 18mm on the wide end. sugestions

^ Yeah, agreeing with the guy recommending the Tamron f/2.8 zoom. I have one.. usually they sell for $350. The non-vc (non-stabilized) versions are said to be sharper. They have cool petal lens hoods, 67mm filter size (big front element) and when it auto focuses it sounds like Robocop.

 

[SHaller]

I have heard good things about that before and its on my list, but I really am warming up to the idea of having more range.

 

[For9Studios]

17-85mm is a decent step-up to a kit lens. You can find some good used glass from BHPhoto.com. If you can find a decent used lens with a f-stop of 2.8 that would be idea - you can get some decent shots and it'll be fun to experiment. I've purchased some Sigma lenses and they take great shots.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 I've read is a great lens like the others suggested.

 

[Stephen.C]

Theres a bunch of lenses with more range, but they will not be as fast as the tamron, especially for the price.

 

[SHaller]

Theres a bunch of lenses with more range, but they will not be as fast as the tamron, especially for the price.

I forgot to mention that the speed wasn't a big need for me. I will have a fast 50mm in the near future and i plan on shooting landscapes and scenery 50% of the time with it.

 

[o hey tyler]

Theres a bunch of lenses with more range, but they will not be as fast as the tamron, especially for the price.

I forgot to mention that the speed wasn't a big need for me. I will have a fast 50mm in the near future and i plan on shooting landscapes and scenery 50% of the time with it.

You're going to be shooting landscapes at 50mm?

 

[SHaller]

Theres a bunch of lenses with more range, but they will not be as fast as the tamron, especially for the price.

I forgot to mention that the speed wasn't a big need for me. I will have a fast 50mm in the near future and i plan on shooting landscapes and scenery 50% of the time with it.

You're going to be shooting landscapes at 50mm?

I was just saying that I am not looking for my landascape lens to be fast because it's going to be tripod mounted half the time, and that I will have a fast lens when i need it.

 

[rhino123]

Actually, have you thought about Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 HSM? I got it... quite good, but might not be as sharp as the Tamron and it was not a fix aperture, but I am satisfied. It had some macro ability too (not real macro lens though).

and at 70mm, you have a good zoom... plus it is not much more than the Tamron. I think this is a good buy.

 

[fsquare]

Also the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX Macro HSM...discountinued and can be had for pretty cheap right now. I believe it was replaced by the 17-50mm which costs like $400-500 more.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

If you can find one, get a tokina 16-50 f/2.8. Its wider, just as fast, solid, and is a 77mm filter diameter. Also,it doesnt usually sound like Robocop when focusing which is a GOOD thing :lmao: ( something that I hate with my Tamron 60mm )

 

[Dao]

Another Tamron owner here. I bought my 17-50mm f/2.8 lens couple years ago used for $300 (local craigslist) And it is the main walk around lens. Mechanically, it is not as smooth as some of the Canon USM lenses, but it does shine in term optical performance. Especially for the cost.


If you take a lot of landscape type photos, what about those ultra wide angle lenses such as the Sigma 10-20mm lens? I've seen it cost from $340 to $390 in the used market. (some great landscape example in 10-20mm.com)

As for the wider range standard zoom lens, the newer Canon lens 15-85mm IS lens seems to be quite good. But it is substantially higher in cost.

 

[ausemmao]

Fourthing some kind of 17-50 f/2.8.
I've got the Tamron as well and find it far, far better than the kit lens. Focuses quickly, is sharp as, and is fast - fast enough to get decent frozen motion without flash in a gym. That said, it's because most of the photography I want to do is in low light.

If you don't need the speed, the 17-85s seem good, especially as they're quite sharp at f/8 from what I've seen.

Now to build the 70-200 fund

 

[KmH]

I forgot to mention that the speed wasn't a big need for me. I will have a fast 50mm in the near future and i plan on shooting landscapes and scenery 50% of the time with it.

You're going to be shooting landscapes at 50mm?

I was just saying that I am not looking for my landascape lens to be fast because it's going to be tripod mounted half the time, and that I will have a fast lens when i need it.

Having a f/2.8 zoom is about more than just fast.

It's also about having a constant zoom and having the ability to stop the lens down for sharpness.

Faster lenses also usually have better optics. You did say you wanted to make a step up from the optics of the kit 18-55.