[ensyed]

I have had my new Canon for a few months now. I asked on another thread for a telephoto lens but I also want to replace the kit lens for something a bit better for every day shooting. I am willing to spend on that.

A friend mentioned
EF-S 17-85 USM
Canon EF - Zoom lens - 28 mm - 135 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS USM -

Is that good every replacement for taking good shots? Portraits, kids in motion so the kid is in focus with the background blurred, family shots, other general touristy shots etc.

Which other ones would you recommend?

Thanks

[AceAceBaby]

I have, and would recommend, the Tamron 18-50mm f/2.8. That's a nice aperture for taking pictures even when the light is getting a bit meh. It's also a lovely lens, though it does cost nearly £200. The wider aperture will give you lower depth of field also (for the background blur you'd like). I believe there is an almost identical Sigma lens that also gets a lot of good comments.

IS won't help to take a picture of your kids running around

[iGiDK]

Originally Posted by ensyed

Portraits, kids in motion so the kid is in focus with the background blurred, family shots, other general touristy shots etc.

Which other ones would you recommend?

Thanks

Would recommend a fast prime for portraits and some action shots
e.g. Canon EF 50mm f1.8 mkII (cheap but popular)
Canon EF 50mm f1.4
Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM

For action shots in general it may be better for you to have the flexibility of something in the 70-200 or 70-300mm range
e.g.
Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO
Canon EF-S 55-250mm f4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f4L

For group shots and touristy stuff you might want to just keep a hold of the kit lens or try:
Sigma 18-50mm f/3.5-5.6 DC
Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX
Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 XR Di
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by ensyed

A friend mentioned
EF-S 17-85 USM

the EF-S 17-85 is an alright lens but a lot of people say it's kit lens optics with IS. The tamron 18-50 and sigma 17-70 would be a better bet

if you're wanting indoor shots of kids i'd recommend either the 50 1.8 or if money allows 50 1.4 - I started with the 1.8 but soon upgraded to the 1.4 as the focusing was so much better and saw an improved pic quality

[Bob_W]

I use the 17-85 IS as a general purpose lens and it covers a reasonable range without being too large or heavy. I have recently purchased the 55-250IS and although there is an overlap I find that this can be useful.
BobW

[raigraphixs]

Anybody got an Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens?, how much difference does it make compared to the standard kit lens?. Not cheap at £620 though.

Im looking for a sharp lens with good contrast under lower light conditions.

If anyone has this lens and still has the orig kit lens (18-55), can they do indoor sample pics using both lens?

Or is there a image comparison site?





.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by raigraphixs

Anybody got an Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens?, how much difference does it make compared to the standard kit lens?. Not cheap at £620 though.

Im looking for a sharp lens with good contrast under lower light conditions.

If anyone has this lens and still has the orig kit lens (18-55), can they do indoor sample pics using both lens?

Or is there a image comparison site?
.

The Canon 17-55IS is so much better! Not cheap but a good lens. I would also look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8, it doesn't have IS but is a cracking lens and only £205 new. Check out photozone for reviews

[denno75uk]

Originally Posted by bubble502

The Canon 17-55IS is so much better! Not cheap but a good lens. I would also look at the Tamron 17-50 2.8, it doesn't have IS but is a cracking lens and only £205 new. Check out photozone for reviews

What he said.

If I could have justified the Canon's price, I'd probably have got it instead of the Tamron, but mainly for it's IS. Optically, I don't think I've had to compromise at all getting the Tamron.

[gasman1]

Bit cheeky, but Ive got a 17-85mm IS for sale in the classifieds.
Its a cracking lens for walkabout purposes, not too heavy but decent construction.
You pay a premium for IS, but it comes in handy when handholding at lower shutter speeds, as long as you dont expect it to act as "fast glass", the advantage over a lower aperture lens is that you retain depth of field compared to say a 50mm f1.8, which personally I find difficult to use.
I replaced it with a 17-40L, on a crop that gives me usable walkabout range, but the images are sharper, but retains the slight barrel distortion wide open. I intend to go full frame at some point so want lenses that will be upgradable, which the EF-S mount lenses are not.
I do notice the lack of IS on the 17-40, especially on indoor shots, but I can compensate by using more bounce flash and keeping the shutter speeds higher that way.

Sim

[senu]

What about Canons own newish ..18-55 USM IS which is better than the kit lens and more VFM than the 17-85
The 17-85 is a bit costly for what is does but it is really only the "purists" on POTN who would call it Kit lens with IS. It does have its own friends too!
It is optically better than that and rather versatile.. provided you avoid 17mm and don't use large apertures at the wide end

If you cant get it cheap .. simply consider the alternatives but dont write it off

[senu]

Originally Posted by raigraphixs

Anybody got an Canon EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM lens?, how much difference does it make compared to the standard kit lens?. Not cheap at £620 though.

Im looking for a sharp lens with good contrast under lower light conditions.
.

Simply put , the 17-55 f2.8 is the lens which most equates to the 50mm 1.8/1.4 in a Wide angle Zoom

It is a L lens in all but name and is not to be compared with the kit lens ( which is usable or indeed the 17-85 but there are several better lenses between them including Canon Tamron and Sigma offerings

In fact you are IMHO likely to get more from it with a 30 or 40D

If I can find the old kit lens I will do a comparison , but the easiest comparison would be to take the same object, with similar lighting on the same body and then blow up 100%: this is a little hard to do .
It is costly though and you may find that the alternatives mentioned in this thread ( and indeed others similar before now) may well be good enough

[raigraphixs]

Originally Posted by senu

Simply put , the 17-55 f2.8 is the lens which most equates to the 50mm 1.8/1.4 in a Wide angle Zoom

It is a L lens in all but name and is not to be compared with the kit lens ( which is usable or indeed the 17-85 but there are several better lenses between them including Canon Tamron and Sigma offerings

In fact you are IMHO likely to get more from it with a 30 or 40D

If I can find the old kit lens I will do a comparison , but the easiest comparison would be to take the same object, with similar lighting on the same body and then blow up 100%: this is a little hard to do .
It is costly though and you may find that the alternatives mentioned in this thread ( and indeed others similar before now) may well be good enough

cheers a comparision will be great if you can do.


Im no expert here, so all your knowledge is appreciated

I have doubts with something like this test, real-world images might look better, but looking at this comparision chart for sharpness i believe, i need convincing, a bit of USM can fix this ;


Before - Stand kit lens £60 - Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II Lens

(mouse over)
After - £600+ - Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens Review

Is it worth the extra £540?

Comparison Test/s


I prob try for a 17-55mm f2.8 or 24-70mm f2.8 lens, as i need the zoom to stop distortion of box type products when photographing at top-down-angles, does this make sense...




.

[senu]

I see what you mean about the comparison. What is probably worth noting is that unless you do 100% crop comparisons, you may struggle to see some of the difference.
What is also true is that once you get used to the sharper images from better lenses the Kit ones never see the light of day .. again, hence my difficulty in locating mine..
Even the 17-55 does have some distortion below 24mm, and the 17-85 , below 28 mm ( which can be fixed in Photoshop or even DPP if that lens is supported)
I don't dismiss the kit lens but even way before the 17-55 you can get better without parting with £540!!