Canon Experts-Walk Around Canon L Lens-Help me choose

[WilsonFlyer]

I think I'm ready to make the plunge and finally buy an L (or better quality glass, I guess, is more proper) lens.

I'd like my first to be a nice walk-around lens. I have to confess, because this is important, most of my use will be at WDW. Probably 60-70%. I think that's important because the dark rides will bring the max aperture into play and the zoom is important too.

Given the fact that my next purchase will more than likely be the 10-22 L wide angle, which of these would you choose and why? There's also the 70-200 L in my future but it's a ways off so don't let that one skew your decision too much. I know there's some overlap with the first one once I have that one but it's going to take the penny bank a while to absorb all this. LOL

EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

or the famous

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (I know this is not an L lens but many say it would be if it were full frame and not "S" since it's so good.)

MAYBE EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM (I know this is a non-L class)

Let's assume for sake of this discussion that full frame is off the table for the time being. Not that it matters for the first two, but would anyone recommend the EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM to save some $$ knowing full frame was off the table?

I have the nifty fifty, the kit zoom (18-55) and the standard 55-250 zoom, if that factors into your choice.

Another thing that's probably important is the fact that 90% of the time, I put a lens on my T2i and go to the parks or visit the resorts. I don't generally take my bag of toys with me. I simply take a small bag to protect the camera and what's currently mounted on it. What I'm saying is, what I walk out the door with, is what I'm "stuck" with until I return to the room. I want this lens to be that lens.

Thanks for any input you may be willing to provide.

[JimbobJimbo]

Let me start out with my progression of lenses in that range:
-Kit Lens
-Tamron 17-50 f2.8(sold it)
-Canon 17-55 f2.8IS(sold it)
-Canon 24-105 f4IS(sold it)
-Canon 15-85 IS(gonna sell it)
-Just bought another Canon 17-55 f2.8IS

Now that I got that out of the way, let me explain what I've learned about the lenses you mentioned. I really liked the 17-55 2.8 IS, but wanted a more all-round lens so I bought the 24-105. It was a great lens, but I found that eventhough I have the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end, there was just to much overlap with my 70-200. With the
15-85, perhaps I just have a bad copy, but there is a good bit of distortion and vignetting and more so I just miss having a constant 2.8. So I'm going back to the 17-55 2.8 IS.

But from what you have said. The 24-105 may be right for you, since you say you only carry one lens when you go out. You will be covered on the wide end with the 10-22. But if you do get a 70-200 in the future there will be a lot of overlap on the long end.

Just some thoughts to consider.

[okwoodsmith]

One thing to consider is what your future camera might be. Once you invest in quality glass, you'll find that you switch out cameras much more often than lenses. If you end up with a full-frame camera (like a 5D) then all your ef-s lenses would have to be replaced. I know this from experience. I had a 7D with the 10-22 and the 17-55 which had to depart when I upgraded to the 5D. The EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM is going to be cheaper for you but if you're really looking for better glass don't consider it.

Having said that, however, if you plan on sticking with a crop-camera, then the 10-22 and 17-55 should definitely be in your arsenal. The 17-55 is as sharp as L glass and the zoom range is perfect for 90% of walk around requirements.

If you do think you might get a full-frame at some point, the 24-105L and the 24-70L are both excellent lenses. The 24-70 is a bit sharper, and you get the extra stop for low light. The 24-105, however, has the IS and is a lighter, less bulky lens to carry around (not to mention the extra focal range). I have them both and find myself using the 24-105 most of the time.

If you want the best performance to dollar you should consider the Tamron 28-75. The copy I had was as sharp as my L glass and you can get for about 1/3 of the cost. That is the one lens I find myself most recommending for people who are wanting to get a higher quality image with a DSLR.

Good luck with your decision. Picking a great lens is a fun process.

[jimim]

I have the 17-55. I love it. I t is my everyday lens. Very sharp as others have said and it always performs well. I use it on a 7d.

My wife has a t2i. I have put it on her camera and it made it very very front heavy. The lens is very heavy for the size of it. It makes my 7d pretty heavy also but at least the camera is balanced I feel.

That is the one thing u might have to consider. Have u had this lens on your camera?

I considered the 28mm L lens but cause of the crop factor I passed for now. Right now I'm not looking at full frame so my choice for my everyday lens made sense. I really loved using it in the park. I carried it in a domke shoulder bag or my wife's 3 million dollar crumpler bag. This bag was perfect for the 7d and the lens.

All my other lens purchases have been non ef-s lens with the thought of full frame down the road. My ef-s lens would get passed down to my wife or maybe kid by then. . .who knows.

I don't know if that helps. I know u aren't thinking full frame right now but oh man what if in the future. all that cash just sitting! I'm sorry if that made u more confused.

Have u looked into the new 70-300 L? I don't think it is out yet but it is a nice looking lens if u don't need the speed of 2.8 for the price.

jim

[mom2rtk]

Another vote for the Canon 17-55.

You say you'll be using what you buy mostly at Disney, so you're going to want something fairly wide available to you.

And honestly, I just love mine so much I rarely use anything else. I occasionally want something a little wider, or a little longer, but it's such a small part of the time it's almost pointless. If I have to stick to one, then this is it. And I have the Tamron 18-270, so I could have it all in one. I probably never should have picked up the Caonon 17-55. The Tamron probably would have been just fine if I had never picked up the Canon.......

[boBQuincy]

I carry a 24-105, it is very good but not very wide on a 1.6x camera. I want a 17-55 but the rumors are that it will soon be upgraded to a 16-60 so I will wait a while. Canon's 17-85 has never tested well and may have set a modern record for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion.

Actually 18-55 is a good range for a single walk-around lens so 17-55 (if you want the wide aperture) or 15-85 (for more range) are going to be good too.

[WilsonFlyer]

This is really helpful, guys. Thank you so much for taking the time! I know you're all busy.

[WilsonFlyer]

I carry a 24-105, it is very good but not very wide on a 1.6x camera. I want a 17-55 but the rumors are that it will soon be upgraded to a 16-60 so I will wait a while. Canon's 17-85 has never tested well and may have set a modern record for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion.

Actually 18-55 is a good range for a single walk-around lens so 17-55 (if you want the wide aperture) or 15-85 (for more range) are going to be good too.

I really like the range on the 15-85, but 3.5-5.6? Would I not be leaving a lot of light gathering on the table with that guy given all the inside stuff at WDW? That's the primary reason it wasn't included in my original list. I'm an amatuer astronomer too with some big scopes so I somewhat understand and appreciate the importance of light gathering. Maybe too much!

Isn't it also pretty much my kit lens, albeit maybe a little better glass, with just a little more range on the short end and certainly a good bit more on the long? Am I missing something very important here? I guess if it was 2.8 across, costs $800, and weighed 10 oz., it would be a perfect lens. LOL

Thanks!

[boBQuincy]

For the inside stuff we generally use the wide end of the range which is at f/3.5, not far from f/2.8. This is not your kit lens: in sharpness; focusing speed; image quality; and price! But if it is aperture you are after then the 17-55 is the obvious choice.


I really like the range on the 15-85, but 3.5-5.6? Would I not be leaving a lot of light gathering on the table with that guy given all the inside stuff at WDW? That's the primary reason it wasn't included in my original list. I'm an amatuer astronomer too with some big scopes so I somewhat understand and appreciate the importance of light gathering. Maybe too much!

Isn't it also pretty much my kit lens, albeit maybe a little better glass, with just a little more range on the short end and certainly a good bit more on the long? Am I missing something very important here? I guess if it was 2.8 across, costs $800, and weighed 10 oz., it would be a perfect lens. LOL

Thanks!

[WilsonFlyer]

Thanks Bob. I'm really starting to get intrigued by that lens and it wasn't even on my original short list! Maybe I could just buy that one and kill two birds with one stone because I wouldn't necessarily have to have the 10-22 L right now, right? Assuming that being the case, couple this one with the 70-200 L later on and that might be just the ticket.

I guess the IS buys me some space on my shutter speeds for lower light situations, right? That's gotta count for something.

Thoughts?

[frzndaqiri]

Gotta jump in and say I've got the EF-S 17-55 as well and adore it.

I rented the 10-22 and had more fun on this last trip than I expected with it - and might add it to my permanent bag in the future.

My current gear -
30D
EF-S 60mm macro f/2.8
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (the "upgraded" kit lens)
EF 85 f/1.8 USM
EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

I'm looking to save for the 7D at which point the 30D will be backup.

I originally got my camera with the 17-85 and while a great trainer lens and better than the default kit, it can't hold anything to the 17-55. Even losing the bit of reach I am absolutely thrilled with it.

[Code]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

[bob100]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

I think for the money the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a better value but the new Sigma 17-50 EX DC OS HSM looks good

[jimim]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

I have the Tamron also along with the canon and I would say the canon is more sharp. THat is just my opinion. I got the tamron first and when i moved up to a new camera i purchased the canon cause the old camera was getting handed down to my mom and wanted her to have a lens already.

[bob100]

I have the Tamron also along with the canon and I would say the canon is more sharp. THat is just my opinion. I got the tamron first and when i moved up to a new camera i purchased the canon cause the old camera was getting handed down to my mom and wanted her to have a lens already.

The Tamron is actually sharper in most of the tests and reviews, especially wide open at f2.8
for example,

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

[photobob]

I am a lifelong Canon user and professional photographer, my biggest advice here is stick with Canon lenses and if you can afford L lenses by all means buy them! I usually use my 24-70 2.8 L lens for my walking around lens at WDW. I Sometimes I'll also pack my 17-40 4L and the 70-200 2.8 L.

http://www.bobcrispphotography.com/

[Code]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass ;) ;)

[photobob]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass ;) ;)

Good point, but I will tell you that I am pretty rough on equipment and I've yet to have to replace any Canon L lens and I've been using them since my film days. I bought the 70-200 2.8L second hand 12 years ago, 300 mm f4L 13 years ago also second hand, 24-70 2.8L probably 10 years ago. They are built like tanks. The lenses stay the same while I replace camera body after camera body.

I did buy Sigma's 17-35 2.8 and it it lasted me less than two years. First the autofocus quit and then it would only shoot at 2.8. A co-worker bought the same lens and had the same problem, he got it fixed. A few months later the problems returned and he literally threw it away.

What I am saying is if you can afford to purchase an L lens it is an excellent investment, not only do they perform beautifully they do so for a very long time and you're never looking to upgrade.

[photobob]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass ;) ;)

Looked at your WDW photos on Flickr, beautiful stuff! I love photographing WDW at night, looking at your photos I may make myself take my tripod.

[InDashMP3]

Wow.. I'm glad someone posted that lens comparison site. I was looking to rent a good walk-around lens for my xsi for our trip in March. I was looking at the 15-85 (great range), but didn't know it would produce great images. To me, it seemed to blow away most other lenses I compared it to on the comparison page. It seemed sharper all the time.. Is that true?

[WilsonFlyer]

I am a lifelong Canon user and professional photographer, my biggest advice here is stick with Canon lenses and if you can afford L lenses by all means buy them! I usually use my 24-70 2.8 L lens for my walking around lens at WDW. I Sometimes I'll also pack my 17-40 4L and the 70-200 2.8 L.

http://www.bobcrispphotography.com/

Thanks Bob. You've swayed me back towards the L lenses, if for no other reason, the longevity of the lenses as camera technology changes.

I think I'm going to go with the 24-70 and then the 2.8 70-200 IS. We'll see what happens from there.

Now, if I can only make myself pull the trigger and actually spend the $$.

I wish I could find a good used souce short of eBay. I guess eBay's a good thing if you're selling. Not so good, sometimes, if you're buying. eBay seems to have gone to retail in the last few years. LOL

I've checked KEH and I might as well buy new from BH Photo or Adorama.

What to do. What to do.



Thanks,
-bob

[bob100]

Wow.. I'm glad someone posted that lens comparison site. I was looking to rent a good walk-around lens for my xsi for our trip in March. I was looking at the 15-85 (great range), but didn't know it would produce great images. To me, it seemed to blow away most other lenses I compared it to on the comparison page. It seemed sharper all the time.. Is that true?

yes, it's true.
"EF-S" type lens on a crop model are sharper than many of the "L" lens!
see www.photozone.de

[mom2rtk]

I actually started a thread last year as I was evaluating which lens to get:

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2455377&highlight=canon+tamron+2+8

I had heard the Tamron was sharp, but that some of that sharpness was lose when you went with the VC version. I have pretty unsteady hands and felt strongly about getting something that was image stabilized.

Someone else posted regarding the lout focusing motor. They also posted a link to youtube so I could hear the sound. I found this most helpful.

It was a really hard decision, and appreciated everyone's input before I finally went with the Canon.

In the end, I didn't want to find myself with second thoughts a year later.

[rdunative]

I have this one on the way. Hoping it will be my walk-around lens.

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

[photobob]

Thanks Bob. You've swayed me back towards the L lenses, if for no other reason, the longevity of the lenses as camera technology changes.

I think I'm going to go with the 24-70 and then the 2.8 70-200 IS. We'll see what happens from there.

Now, if I can only make myself pull the trigger and actually spend the $$.

I wish I could find a good used souce short of eBay. I guess eBay's a good thing if you're selling. Not so good, sometimes, if you're buying. eBay seems to have gone to retail in the last few years. LOL

I've checked KEH and I might as well buy new from BH Photo or Adorama.

What to do. What to do.



Thanks,
-bob


The only used equipment I've ever bought has been from individuals that I know. I know how much shooting they do and how they take care of their equipment. I just picked up a Canon 5D from a friend that solely shoots portraits and I think they were only 7,200 frames shot on it, and it was in great condition and i got for $900. I usually use B&H for any new purchases.

I'd steer away from buying from photojournalists, we shoot very heavy and get our gear in and out of the car multiple times per day and if we are getting rid of a piece of equipment it is probably pretty used up!

[Lehigh98]

Heading to Disney for the first trip with my soon to be 5 and 3 year olds on 4/1.
I've had the Canon Rebel Xt since just before my first son was born and:
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Kit Lens
EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Lens
EF 50mm f/1.8 I Lens
Speedlite 430EX II Flash

I was already looking to rent a good "walking around" lens for WDW since the kit lens isn't so great and I was thinking of finding something with more range so I wouldn't have to stop to switch lenses. I was originally planning on renting the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

This thread now has me wondering if I should instead be looking at one of these:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

For the purpose of shooting our first trip to Disney for a week, what do you think would be best? Not sure how important the longer range will be. My kids are small and will be pretty close most of the time but it may come in handy if I'm trying to shoot a close up of their faces on a ride, what do you think?

TIA!!!

[Luvscrappin]

Where do you rent lenses? I have never rented before and I am in no position to purchase a new one before my trip in two weeks. Thanks!

[canongirl]

I have the 24-70 mm L that I plan to use as my WDW walk around lens. I also plan on bringing some fast primes.

[bob100]

Heading to Disney for the first trip with my soon to be 5 and 3 year olds on 4/1.
I've had the Canon Rebel Xt since just before my first son was born and:
EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Kit Lens
EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Lens
EF 50mm f/1.8 I Lens
Speedlite 430EX II Flash

I was already looking to rent a good "walking around" lens for WDW since the kit lens isn't so great and I was thinking of finding something with more range so I wouldn't have to stop to switch lenses. I was originally planning on renting the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS.

This thread now has me wondering if I should instead be looking at one of these:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens

For the purpose of shooting our first trip to Disney for a week, what do you think would be best? Not sure how important the longer range will be. My kids are small and will be pretty close most of the time but it may come in handy if I'm trying to shoot a close up of their faces on a ride, what do you think?

TIA!!!

So why do you feel the 18-55IS "isn't so great" ?
sharpness? focal length?

[Lehigh98]

So why do you feel the 18-55IS "isn't so great" ?
sharpness? focal length?

I wasn't talking about the IS version, I was talking about the old non-IS kit lens.

[WilsonFlyer]

So why do you feel the 18-55IS "isn't so great" ?
sharpness? focal length?

I know this wasn't addressed to me but as I am the OP in the thread and also commented on the 18-55IS Kit lens, I feel compelled to respond.

The colors on mine are very washed out. Almost like it's out of focus without being out of focus, if that makes sense.

I also don't like it because it feels cheap, quite honestly. Why? Because it is, IMHO. It's the KIT lens. Not exactly Canon's best, but rather the cheapest all-around lens they could manufacture to include, that included a decent range, as many people that buy these cameras will never buy even one other lens.

It's really a shame that Canon (and others too, BTW) includes their low-hanging fruit as standard by which the consumer DSLR line is judged, but let's face it, it's all about price to almighty consumer.

And a hood? I know none of the non-L lenses include a hood but you'd think in the kit that they'd at least include a hood. To be honest, I didn't know much about using a hood when I started hunting for a replacement walk-around lens and now I'm not sure it wouldn't help a lot by itself. I'm now afraid a lot of my problem is light entering from the sides and washing out many of my images. As a matter of fact, I ordered one for my 18-55, even though I'm still going to get another lens. I want to try it.

There seems to be something magical (to me, anyway) about the demagraphic that typically buys DSLRs and the $1000 price barrier. Any other lens decent enough to include with a camera like the T2i would easily bump the kit price past that magical thousand dollar threshold. Quite simply, that's why we get the 18-55. Now I'm starting to repeat myself but I hope I've made my point.

I may be a lousy photographer and a pro-wannabe but my camera deserves the best opportunity it can have to be it's best, given my limited abilities. At the end of the day, I don't feel like the 18-55 IS gives me, or it, that chance. A new lens may prove this entire theory wrong, but I'm going to have to see one on my T2i first to prove it to myself.

(Edited to correct a spelling error.)

[bob100]

I know this wasn't addressed to me but as I am the OP in the thread and also commented on the 18-55IS Kit lens, I feel compelled to respond.

The colors on mine are very washed out. Almost like it's out of focus without being out of focus, if that makes sense.

I also don't like it because it feels cheap, quite honestly. Why? Because it is, IMHO. It's the KIT lens. Not exactly Canon's best, but rather the cheapest all-around lens they could manufacture to include, that included a decent range, as many people that buy these cameras will never buy even one other lens.

It's really a shame that Canon (and others too, BTW) includes their low-hanging fruit as standard by which the consumer DSLR line is judged, but let's face it, it's all about price to almighty consumer.

And a hood? I know non of the non-L lenses include a hood but you'd think in the kit that they'd at least include a hood. To be honest, I didn't know much about using a hood when I started hunting for a replacement walk-around lens and now I'm not sure it wouldn't help a lot by itself. I'm now afraid a lot of my problem is light entering from the sides and washing out many of my images. As a matter of fact, I ordered one for my 18-55, even though I'm still going to get another lens. I want to try it.

There seems to be something magical (to me, anyway) about the demagraphic that typically buys DSLRs and the $1000 price barrier. Any other lens decent enough to include with a camera like the T2i would easily bump the kit price past that magical thousand dollar threshold. Quite simply, that's why we get the 18-55. Now I'm starting to repeat myself but I hope I've made my point.

I may be a lousy photographer and a pro-wannabe but my camera deserves the best opportunity it can have to be it's best, given my limited abilities. At the end of the day, I don't feel like the 18-55 IS gives me, or it, that chance. A new lens may prove this entire theory wrong, but I'm going to have to see one on my T2i first to prove it to myself.

OK, get that new lens and prove your "theory" wrong!

The 18-55IS gets good reviews at sites like www.photozone.de Check it out. It's rated very high in optical quality/image resolution and colors despite that "cheap" feeling!

here's one example of the 18-55IS with an older XSi Rebel model
- those colors don't seem so washed out to me!


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3484/4061852560_daa74c578b_b.jpg

[photobob]

I know this wasn't addressed to me but as I am the OP in the thread and also commented on the 18-55IS Kit lens, I feel compelled to respond.

The colors on mine are very washed out. Almost like it's out of focus without being out of focus, if that makes sense.

I also don't like it because it feels cheap, quite honestly. Why? Because it is, IMHO. It's the KIT lens. Not exactly Canon's best, but rather the cheapest all-around lens they could manufacture to include, that included a decent range, as many people that buy these cameras will never buy even one other lens.

It's really a shame that Canon (and others too, BTW) includes their low-hanging fruit as standard by which the consumer DSLR line is judged, but let's face it, it's all about price to almighty consumer.

And a hood? I know non of the non-L lenses include a hood but you'd think in the kit that they'd at least include a hood. To be honest, I didn't know much about using a hood when I started hunting for a replacement walk-around lens and now I'm not sure it wouldn't help a lot by itself. I'm now afraid a lot of my problem is light entering from the sides and washing out many of my images. As a matter of fact, I ordered one for my 18-55, even though I'm still going to get another lens. I want to try it.

There seems to be something magical (to me, anyway) about the demagraphic that typically buys DSLRs and the $1000 price barrier. Any other lens decent enough to include with a camera like the T2i would easily bump the kit price past that magical thousand dollar threshold. Quite simply, that's why we get the 18-55. Now I'm starting to repeat myself but I hope I've made my point.

I may be a lousy photographer and a pro-wannabe but my camera deserves the best opportunity it can have to be it's best, given my limited abilities. At the end of the day, I don't feel like the 18-55 IS gives me, or it, that chance. A new lens may prove this entire theory wrong, but I'm going to have to see one on my T2i first to prove it to myself.

There is no substitute for high quality glass. To me one of the ways to judge a lens is how it performs in bad light, any lens can make a decent looking photo in optimum light. I know I keep harping on L lenses but 25 years of experience, shooting every day, tells me the quality of your image is most dependent on the lens hanging on your camera. People are always talking about what their next camera is going to be, pay more attention to what your next lens will be!

[photobob]

OK, get that new lens and prove your "theory" wrong!

The 18-55IS gets good reviews at sites like www.photozone.de Check it out. It's rated very high in optical quality/image resolution and colors despite that "cheap" feeling!

here's one example of the 18-55IS with an XSi Rebel model
- those colors don't seem so washed out to me!



It is a decent lens, for most it will do the job just fine and is a step up from the original kit lens no doubt. I wouldn't take over my 17-40 f4L, of course it's a heck of a lot cheaper!

[WilsonFlyer]

It is a decent lens, for most it will do the job just fine and is a step up from the original kit lens no doubt. I wouldn't take over my 17-40 f4L, of course it's a heck of a lot cheaper!

Now I'm confused. The 18-55 IS was the kit lens on my T2i. I'm pretty sure it was the kit lens on my XSi and my XTi too.

Am I missing something?

[bob100]

Now I'm confused. The 18-55 IS was the kit lens on my T2i. I'm pretty sure it was the kit lens on my XSi and my XTi too.

Am I missing something?

possibly, yes. there was the original 18-55 then the 18-55IS and now with the 600D the 18-55IS II

again, check out the optical quality ratings of the 18-55IS on lens review sites like www.photozone.de - it may surprise you !

[WilsonFlyer]

That's a great shot, Bob. I'll give you that. I really don't think my lens would produce that image but I could be wrong. Since you didn't say, and because of the point you're trying to make, I'm assuming that image has absolutely no post-processing. Is that safe to assume?

Maybe my camera needs a new photgrapher more than a new lens! :lmao:

[WilsonFlyer]

possibly, yes. there was the original 18-55 then the 18-55IS and now with the 600D the 18-55IS II

Yep. I think my XTi had the non-IS version, now that you mention it. It was a few hundred dollars ago and a few years now and I forget. LOL

Certainly, unless the T3i is the first exception, non of the consumer Rebels include the II version, as far as I've seen so far.

[bob100]

That's a great shot, Bob. I'll give you that. I really don't think my lens would produce that image but I could be wrong. Since you didn't say, and because of the point you're trying to make, I'm assuming that image has absolutely no post-processing. Is that safe to assume?

Maybe my camera needs a new photgrapher more than a new lens! :lmao:

that was a some time ago, (I now have a Tamron 17-50)
I believe it did have some processing, tweaking levels contrast, etc. with Photoshop, but "SOOC" - nothing wrong with the 18-55IS image resolution!

[WilsonFlyer]

I have to admit that the site I generally trust the most, says it's a pretty good lens too.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

Admittedly, I don't know much about the site you posted your review from.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I just have a bad copy. It's certainly been known to have happened before.

EditAdd: For what it's worth, I remember the kit lens on my XSi always taking great shots. That's always bothered me. Maybe I did just get a bad one with my T2i. Who knows.

[bob100]

I have to admit that the site I generally trust the most, says it's a pretty good lens too.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/

Admittedly, I don't know much about the site you posted your review from.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I just have a bad copy. It's certainly been known to have happened before.

EditAdd: For what it's worth, I remember the kit lens on my XSi always taking great shots. That's always bothered me. Maybe I did just get a bad one with my T2i. Who knows.

I don't know which version you have but the T2i 18-55IS and the XSi 18-55IS are the same.
I'll also mention that "EF-S" type lens on a crop model can have better image resolution than more expensive "L" lens!

for example, compare a cheap Tamron 17-50 2.8 with the Canon 17-40 L

see any differences?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

[mom2rtk]

FWIW........ I had the Xt, the Xs then the Xsi (each replaced under an extended warranty and upgraded to the newer model available at the time). And I recall the chatter about the Xt being that it had an inferior kit lens. And I also remember one of the newer models (either the Xs or the Xsi) coming out amid chatter about the much improved kit lens.

[WilsonFlyer]

I don't know which version you have but the T2i 18-55IS and the XSi 18-55IS are the same.
I'll also mention that "EF-S" type lens on a crop model can have better image resolution than more expensive "L" lens!

for example, compare a cheap Tamron 17-50 2.8 with the Canon 17-40 L

see any differences?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=400&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=2&API=2&LensComp=100&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

I know they are the same, Bob. I'm simply saying that it doesn't seem that my copy that came with my T2i is as good as the one that came with (and I SOLD with) my XSi.

For what it's worth, I'm not even considering third-party lenses for my walk-around lens anyway. I know some of them are good, but I'm dead-set on this lens being a Canon.

As I said earlier, my skillset may not be as good as many here, but I should be able to take photographs arguably just as good with the T2i as I did with the XSi. They should be maginally better given the feature set of the T2i's body compared to the XSi. Such is not the case with mine.

I keep going round and round on the "L" v. non-"L" on a crop body. One person tells me to buy for the future and another says buy for the camera you have now (You're not the only one that says the EF-S's are just as good, if not better, on the crop cameras as the "L" series lenses.).

Now I'm full circle and back to the EF-S 15-85 and the EF-S 17-55. I really think I'm down to those two now for real. I'm really leaning towards the 17-55 because, even though I love the extra reach and slightly expanded WA on the 15-85, I know my long-term (6-12 months) goal is to have a 70-200 L-Series of some flavor (Whatever the pocketbook can stand at the time! LOL).

I get the weather-proofing and sealing on the L-Series but I'm willing to concede that on this purchase.

Again, I simply want the best walk-around lens that I can buy for Disney. I love the extra light gathering on the 2.8 17-55 and the fact that it's available throughout the zoom range. I'll be surprised if that's not the one I ultimately buy once I find the best deal out there on one.

[bob100]

Now I'm full circle and back to the EF-S 15-85 and the EF-S 17-55. I really think I'm down to those two now for real. I'm really leaning towards the 17-55 because, even though I love the extra reach and slightly expanded WA on the 15-85, I know my long-term (6-12 months) goal is to have a 70-200 L-Series of some flavor (Whatever the pocketbook can stand at the time! LOL).
.

can't go wrong with either of those choices, the 17-55 2.8 is the top of the line zoom for crop models