replacement for canon kit lens

Depends on if you want the extra reach and slightly wider end, but you'll be giving up the constant f/2.8 aperture and IS.

A couple of good options if you want something cheaper but still a good upgrade from the kit lens, are the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC, or the Sigma 17-50mm OS. I've used both and found the Tamron to be sharper (plus it's cheaper), but I dabble in a bit of video so the OS is really helpful.
 
I have the Tamron mentioned above and the Canon 17-85 IS.

Haven't had the Tamron very long but does seem nice and sharp. Wide aperture a bonus.

If the Canon was that good I wouldn't have looked at the Tamron. I've never really been that impressed with it.
 
Ben ,thanks but the lens were 17-55 or 15-85, the 17-85 has problems so I've heard and isn't on my list but interesting you also liked the Tam.
Hunders thanks for the rec,really hard to split the 2Canons .
 
THC_SsSsSnake said:
Ben ,thanks but the lens were 17-55 or 15-85, the 17-85 has problems so I've heard and isn't on my list but interesting you also liked the Tam.
Hunders thanks for the rec,really hard to split the 2Canons .
Click to expand...

Yeah, just thought I'd mention it. Not had problems as such, just never been that blown away by it.

The Tamron seems to get consistently good reviews for a budget lens though.
 
Oh yeah, the 15-85mm does have IS, sorry, forgot.

For me, constant f/2.8 is the more useful. I haven't found the need for the extra 55mm -> 85mm that I couldn't do just by taking a few steps forward. But your general situation might be different from mine.
 
For me because i feel 50 - 55 is a little short i would always go with either 15-85 or sigma 17-70 contemporary (f2.8-4), which is really versatile - wide aperture, close focus, IS etc at a very good price
 
Last edited:
I've owned the 17-55 previously and currently have the 15-85, although it's worth noting that the latter didn't replace the former.

Both are excellent lenses. If you really want or need the f/2.8 constant aperture then go for the 17-55 but otherwise I'd stick with the 15-85 as I think it's a better walkabout lens.
 
Yeah I think, on balance, the 15-85 has more going for it. It's better built, has better range and better IS. The image quality is excellent.
 
Well it's not f/5.6 across the entire range plus it's f/5 at 55mm, meaning at worst it's one and two-thirds stops slower than the 17-55.

As to how much this matters - that depends what you want to shoot. Indoors? - frankly f/2.8 barely cuts it indoors anyway, plus with static subjects the improved IS of the 15-85 will give you back what you lost to the 17-55 by aperture. Yes, with low-light conditions and a moving subject, f/2.8 is obviously better.
 
For me personally aperture is more important. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Non VC and recently bought the Canon 17-55 f.28 IS on this very forum. IS really is a revelation. Thinking of selling the Tamron actually.

Having said that, I'd be more excited by the 15-85's extra 2mm at the wide end than the extra 35 at the long...
 
CGrieves said:
For me personally aperture is more important. I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Non VC and recently bought the Canon 17-55 f.28 IS on this very forum. IS really is a revelation. Thinking of selling the Tamron actually.

Having said that, I'd be more excited by the 15-85's extra 2mm at the wide end than the extra 35 at the long...
Click to expand...

I agree on the aperture personally - I have a 24-70 myself, but overall, for a single walkabout lens, I think the advantages of the 15-85 outweigh those of the 17-55, just! Others may have different priorities of course :)

As for IS, I can't say I've really missed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom