Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 14, 2011, 12:35 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10
Default Best Canon SLR lens upgrade

I have:
Canon Rebel 300D
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 80-200mm f4.5-5.6
Canon 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS
Bower 728C flash

I have the chance to upgrade, and am looking for the best bang/buck. I recently upgraded from the original kit lens to the IS version, and like it much more. The body seems to do what I want, feature wise. The only feature of the newer bodies I would like would be improved autofocus, but that isn't huge for me. Not sure how much image quality would improve.

I am debating swapping the 80-200 for the 55-250, which seems a much better lens. I'm also debating a better main lens, like the 17-55mm f2.8. And swapping the Bower flash for a Canon 380/4XX/5XX. Even the 380EX looks like an improvement, and the 4 or 5 series would be great.

Thoughts? Thanks
saintz is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 14, 2011, 1:12 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

I think the weak link in your kit is the 80-200, and agree that the 55-250 IS would be a significant improvement.

What, exactly, are you the least satisfied with?
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 14, 2011, 1:47 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10
Default

Image quality. I want sharper and clearer. The 80-200 is mediocre. The 18-55 IS is good, but I'm wondering if the 17-55 (at about ten times the cost) will get me much more.
saintz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2011, 4:56 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,571
Default

Yes, the Canon 17-55/2.8 will do better thanthe 18-55 kit lens. But so will the unstabilized Tamron 17-50/2.8 (at about 3 times the cost), the stabilized Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (at about 3 times the cost), the stabilized Sigma 17-50/2.8 (at about 5 times the cost), the stabilized Canon 15-85 IS (at about 6 times the cost), or even the stabilized Sigma 18-50/2.8-4.5 (at about the same cost).

I still think the weak link is the 80-200, but if you don't use it often, then its flaws don't matter much, and replacing the kit lens is a better idea.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2011, 8:00 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bangor,North Wales
Posts: 3,741
Default

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens is a gem and is far superior to the standard kit lens- but it is quite expensive.... but hey- it's your money..!
SIMON40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 15, 2011, 3:21 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10
Default

Forgot to mention I rarely shoot with the 80-200. Even the 50mm doesn't get a ton of use because it's a lot of zoom on the crop sensor.

Thanks for the list. I will check some of those. I had forgotten the 15-85.
saintz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 16, 2011, 3:40 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The 15-85 is a tremendous lens.

Check out the blur charts at slrgear.com, I think all of the lenses TCav has mentioned have been tested there.

I know that if I was using a crop sensor on the Canon the 15-85 would be my main lens. No doubt about it.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 1:10 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10
Default

I take it the 15-85 is optically between the 17-55 (better) and 18-55 (worse)?

I am also looking at the 28-135, which I take it is optically inferior to the 15-85, in addition to lacking a real wide angle, but much cheaper.

I'm also debating a 28mm f2.8 or 35mm f2 prime. I could probably get some of the shots that I use the kit lens for now with a prime smaller than the 50mm.

In retrospect, reading some reviews on the 17-55 versus the 18-55, I am having trouble justifying the cost. Tests seem to show the IQ is pretty darn close, at least under normal circumstances.
saintz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 1:18 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10
Default

I recently took this with the 18-55 IS kit lens:


and these with the 50mm:




Which leads me to believe my equipment isn't that lacking, so much as I need to remember what I learned in high school and apply it. I'm curious how much any of the more expensive lenses would have improved or facilitated shots like these.
saintz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 17, 2011, 1:43 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
wave01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North West England
Posts: 1,749
Default

Hi would look at s sigma 17-70 it's cheaper than the 15-85 and the results I get I am very pleased with it.
wave01 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:41 PM.