Upgrade lens but I can't see a noticeable difference. What do I do?

[spartans]

First and foremost thank you ALL for taking he time to respond.

Back in the 70's, I had a Minolta 201 and three primes. A 24 (or 28?), a 50-1.4 and a Sigma 200/Macro. I shot tens of thousand of slides through them and enjoyed the memories. When it came to buying a figital camera, one of the things I wanted to avoid was all the lens changing back and forth. Back then, when my wife and I travelled around, she acted as my nurse.....50 please....200 please....scalpel..... She not that thrilled to be a lens mule anymore. ...........

Sooo....

I started with getting a telephoto and then it morphed into a quest for a good all around lens. First, it was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but I changed my mind because it had no vibration control. Then it was the Tamron 17-55 with VC. When I tried it at the store, it was hunting back and forth and sometimes it would stop dead and out of focus. The salesman had to change the settings on his camera to make sure it worked. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then it was the Canon 15-85. When I bought it on Friday, even if I knew the price, I was kind of shocked to see the $960 bill. Thankfully, it's from a big retailer and I'm bringing it back today.

I know primes are better, but the convenience of travelling without the size and weight makes it worth it.

So....

I don't really want to spend the money on the 24-105 but I can if I have too and if it makes a measurable difference. Alternatively, I can buy the much cheaper 17-85 or go back to the Tamron 17-55 for about the same money. Given what I saw with the 15-85, I doubt I will get that much better shots out of them.

So now its.....

*Canon 17-85 for $450

*Tamron 17-55 f2.8 for $550....and then add a telephoto

*Canon 24-105 for $1400

*NOTHING. Buy a cheap telephoto (Canon 55-250 F4, $300) and call it a day for few years or until they make a substantial good improvement over the camera I have.

Any thoughts?

Again, thanks in advance for people who have taken the time to respond.

 

[djacobox372]

More expensive lenses typically work better at wider apertures, along with offering wider apertures, they also have more consistent sharpness and distortion (or lack there off) over their entire zoom range. However, if you shoot an inexpensive lens at a small aperture inside the "sweet spot" of it's zoom range you likely won't see much difference.

Like most performance items, high-end equipement only really excels when pushed to the limits. You can't really tell the difference in performance between a mustang and a corvette just driving around town at 30mph either.

 

[TheBiles]

First and foremost thank you ALL for taking he time to respond.

Back in the 70's, I had a Minolta 201 and three primes. A 24 (or 28?), a 50-1.4 and a Sigma 200/Macro. I shot tens of thousand of slides through them and enjoyed the memories. When it came to buying a figital camera, one of the things I wanted to avoid was all the lens changing back and forth. Back then, when my wife and I travelled around, she acted as my nurse.....50 please....200 please....scalpel..... She not that thrilled to be a lens mule anymore. ...........

Sooo....

I started with getting a telephoto and then it morphed into a quest for a good all around lens. First, it was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but I changed my mind because it had no vibration control. Then it was the Tamron 17-55 with VC. When I tried it at the store, it was hunting back and forth and sometimes it would stop dead and out of focus. The salesman had to change the settings on his camera to make sure it worked. Not exactly confidence inspiring. Then it was the Canon 15-85. When I bought it on Friday, even if I knew the price, I was kind of shocked to see the $960 bill. Thankfully, it's from a big retailer and I'm bringing it back today.

I know primes are better, but the convenience of travelling without the size and weight makes it worth it.

So....

I don't really want to spend the money on the 24-105 but I can if I have too and if it makes a measurable difference. Alternatively, I can buy the much cheaper 17-85 or go back to the Tamron 17-55 for about the same money. Given what I saw with the 15-85, I doubt I will get that much better shots out of them.

So now its.....

*Canon 17-85 for $450

*Tamron 17-55 f2.8 for $550....and then add a telephoto

*Canon 24-105 for $1400

*NOTHING. Buy a cheap telephoto (Canon 55-250 F4, $300) and call it a day for few years or until they make a substantial good improvement over the camera I have.

Any thoughts?

Again, thanks in advance for people who have taken the time to respond.

You'd be mad to spend $1400 on the 24-105. It can easily be had for under $900 on eBay.

--
Sent from my HTC Pyramid.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

You bought an SLR to have the flexibility of lenses, but you don't want to change lenses..

 

[spartans]

You bought an SLR to have the flexibility of lenses, but you don't want to change lenses..

OUCH!

Part of it was to get a superior camera and part of it was to get upward mobility to better quality.

That cost and benefit of the upward mobility is the issue.

 

[spartans]

You bought an SLR to have the flexibility of lenses, but you don't want to change lenses..

I thought about that. Maybe I can find someone who is buying a Mark 5 and piggyback on them if they don't want the lens. Kit price up here is $3000 with lens and $2250 wihtout. A $750 difference. Maybe I can pick up an extra $100 and still do well.

Anywho....I got a 24-105 for a couple of days and will try it out.

 

[DiskoJoe]

you could have saved some if you bought on ebay.

 

[Big Mike]

I haven't tried the EF-S 15-85mm...and I've always wondered why it was so expensive. I have the EF-S 17-85mm (which, I assume, was replaced by the EF-S 15-85mm in Canon's line up) and while it's not a great lens, it's not terrible either. I certainly would be wary of spending that much on a lens that didn't carry the 'L' designation. That being said, the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, has a great reputation and was a lens I coveted, but it's fairly expensive (so I settled on the Tamron 17-50mm).

But, I made the predictable mistake in that I saved money by buying EF-S lenses and the Tamron 17-50mm, which are designed for crop body cameras...and now I've upgraded to a 5D mkII, and those lenses don't play well with it.

 

[TheBiles]

I haven't tried the EF-S 15-85mm...and I've always wondered why it was so expensive. I have the EF-S 17-85mm (which, I assume, was replaced by the EF-S 15-85mm in Canon's line up) and while it's not a great lens, it's not terrible either. I certainly would be wary of spending that much on a lens that didn't carry the 'L' designation. That being said, the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS, has a great reputation and was a lens I coveted, but it's fairly expensive (so I settled on the Tamron 17-50mm).

But, I made the predictable mistake in that I saved money by buying EF-S lenses and the Tamron 17-50mm, which are designed for crop body cameras...and now I've upgraded to a 5D mkII, and those lenses don't play well with it.

This is exactly why I'm staying away from EF-S lenses. No needed to buy them again if you do it right the first time.


--
Sent from my HTC Pyramid.

 

[subscuck]

First, it was the Tamron 24-70 2.8 but I changed my mind because it had no vibration control.

VC (or IS, VR, OS, whatever) isn't that useful at those shorter focal lengths. I wouldn't use it as criteria for selecting a lens under 200mm. Photographers in the pre image stabilization days seemed to do just fine without it.

 

[analog.universe]

Not that I have any experience with it, but sometimes it seems like it would be cool to be able to hand hold 24mm 1/4sec or something for landscapes. That would take care of half the shots I usually want my tripod for... if it does in fact work that well.

 

[Erik638]

This. The 24-105 is a fantastic lens. The LEFS you bought is barely above a kit lens in terms of quality. Throw a 24-105 on there and you'll be amazed by the quality.

O