Lens advise

[PoohLover78]

Now that I've returned from my WDW trip, I noticed a soft spot on my Canon 18-55mm lens... Luckily it doesn't show on any of my Disney pics, so I think something must have happened on the trip back That said, I'm not gonna have it looked at and just will replace that lens. I could just go with another EF-S 18-55mm IS I guess, however a) I was never really satisfied with the sharpness of the lens compared to my next up zoom lenses and b) my next lenses up both start at 70mm and at times I was really missing that area in between (55 too wide and 70 too narrow). I was thinking maybe a 17-85 or 17-135 would be a nice replacement. I was looking at a Tamron 28-75 and a 24-70 yesterday, but with my crop body the 24 or 28 isn't wide enough for me. Heck, sometimes the 18 isn't even wide enough to my liking, but that's another story.

I can't really spend a lot of money on a lens right now for various reasons so I'm looking at buying used (no need to suggest shops - I'll buy outside the States). I need to replace the lens before Christmas though. What would probably be a good replacement for my lens? Can anyone recommend any lenses that I could replace this with? I was thinking maybe a f2.8 lens would be nice, however I don't think that's in my budget right now.

PS: These will be used with a Canon 60D.

 

[photo_chick]

What do you mean by a soft spot and have you run a focus test?

I'm always a bit hesitant to replace a lens with the same lens. Even if the lens has an issue I personally would rather replace it with something that was a bit of an upgrade.

 

[PoohLover78]

When I take a pic of something, there is an area in the pic that is just blurred while the rest is sharp. It moves around when I zoom. I've seen this before with scratched lenses but I can't see a scratch on the glass anywhere so I don't know where the soft spot is coming from. I also can't really see any dust specs or the likes in the lens. It's definitely the lens and not the camera as I've used another lens on the body and the whole pic is crystal clear. Taking the lens in to have it looked at would cost me about half of just replacing it with a used lens I think so I was thinking of just replacing it and selling this one for spare parts or the likes for a few bucks.

I also really don't want to replace this with the same lens as - as I've said above - I am not really satisfied with the sharpness anymore compared to the other lenses I have. I thought maybe you guys could suggest a good replacement for it as I sure would like to get something better.

 

[havoc315]

The most affordable "kit upgrade" lens that I routinely see is the Tamon 17-50 2.8. Obviously, it doesn't expand your range. But it gives you constant aperture, so it's a pretty decent upgrade. New, you can get it for under $400. Used, it's under $300. That might sound like a lot, but it's pretty affordable for a higher grade lens.
The Canon 17-55 2.8 (which is a much nicer lens that includes image stabilization and a silent motor) is over $800. The Canon 24-70 2.8 L lens is close to $2,000. Lens prices escalate quickly. You can typically save 20-30% by buying used. But good lenses aren't cheap.

Whether upgrading lenses is worth the money....... Many people will rightly claim that the lens has much more impact on the shot than the body, and therefore you should be willing to spend more on lenses than the body.

But many people also validly claim that for most routine shooting, especially if you shoot in daylight with medium sized prints, you often won't even see a difference between the kit lens and an upgraded lens, and therefore it's not worth it to spend more than a kit lens.

 

[PoohLover78]

I am ready to put down around $300 for a lens if it would give me an upgrade from what I currently have. Everything above is currently way out of my league. I didn't know the Tamron 2.8 could be had so cheap. I'm mostly shooting indoor or in cloudy weather with the "short" lens so I think the 2.8 would definitely be a benefit. I just wasn't sure if a Sigma or Tamron lens in the same range would actually be an upgrade from the kit lens and thus justify the extra cost.

I could do without extra range on the upper end. I haven't had it ever since going digital and there's only a few instances where I missed it. I actually missed the lowlight ability a lot more. If the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens and can be considered an upgrade (aside from the larger aperture) I will definitely look at it.

 

[havoc315]

I am ready to put down around $300 for a lens if it would give me an upgrade from what I currently have. Everything above is currently way out of my league. I didn't know the Tamron 2.8 could be had so cheap. I'm mostly shooting indoor or in cloudy weather with the "short" lens so I think the 2.8 would definitely be a benefit. I just wasn't sure if a Sigma or Tamron lens in the same range would actually be an upgrade from the kit lens and thus justify the extra cost.

I could do without extra range on the upper end. I haven't had it ever since going digital and there's only a few instances where I missed it. I actually missed the lowlight ability a lot more. If the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens and can be considered an upgrade (aside from the larger aperture) I will definitely look at it.

I don't shoot Canon...
I have personal experience with the Sony version of the lens. Definite upgrade over the kit. But not as good as the lens I'm shooting with now.

Tom Bricker strongly recommends the Nikon version of the lens:

************************************tamron-17-50mm-f2-8-lens-review/

The Sony version is also reviewed well:
http://kurtmunger.com/tamron_af_17_50mmid111.html

The Canon should be at the same level and just fits within your price range.

 

[bob100]

I am ready to put down around $300 for a lens if it would give me an upgrade from what I currently have. Everything above is currently way out of my league. I didn't know the Tamron 2.8 could be had so cheap. I'm mostly shooting indoor or in cloudy weather with the "short" lens so I think the 2.8 would definitely be a benefit. I just wasn't sure if a Sigma or Tamron lens in the same range would actually be an upgrade from the kit lens and thus justify the extra cost.

I could do without extra range on the upper end. I haven't had it ever since going digital and there's only a few instances where I missed it. I actually missed the lowlight ability a lot more. If the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is a solid lens and can be considered an upgrade (aside from the larger aperture) I will definitely look at it.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is an upgrade from the 18-55IS kit lens but the non-vc version which is sharper does not have "IS" so if that's important you might want to look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM, more expensive but AF, IS and other features are better. For low light indoor shots without a flash I mostly use the 30mm 1.4 and 50mm 1.8 - many times f2.8 is just not good enough to use without a flash

Canon 60D with Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

 

[SkaGoat]

I have the Canon version of the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC lens and it a great buy for the money.

 

[PoohLover78]

Interesting. I have looked at the Tamron and haven't yet seen that there are two versions of it. I guess the VC VS non-VC isn't clearly marked at the sites I looked at. At that range, I won't need IS. With the kit lens, I have learned how to keep the camera steady for longer exposures.

I also have a 50mm/f1.8 but for indoor it sometimes is just too tight.

Now comes the problem though that all my filters are 58mm max *sigh*

 

[bob100]

Interesting. I have looked at the Tamron and haven't yet seen that there are two versions of it. I guess the VC VS non-VC isn't clearly marked at the sites I looked at. At that range, I won't need IS. With the kit lens, I have learned how to keep the camera steady for longer exposures.

I also have a 50mm/f1.8 but for indoor it sometimes is just too tight.

Now comes the problem though that all my filters are 58mm max *sigh*

the differences are important!
All the lens review sites indicate the non-vc version is significantly sharper than the vc version and this is backed up with many individual user reviews.
check this Canon site
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ because you may be able to find a deal on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM (note all the letters) it's better than the Tamron in most respects except the price

 

[nbaresejr]

the differences are important!
All the lens review sites indicate the non-vc version is significantly sharper than the vc version and this is backed up with many individual user reviews.
check this Canon site
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/ because you may be able to find a deal on the Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM (note all the letters) it's better than the Tamron in most respects except the price

I agree. I am on that forum everyday and researched the Tamrom and Sigma extensively. The Sigma was better in all aspects. The POTN forum you linked to is filled with thousands of members and that is the general consensus. The Tamron without VC gets closer in IQ to the Sigma but giving up OS and HSM. Features to $$ the Sigma is a bargain. The IQ is not as good as the Canon 17-55 2.8 but at the time i purchased it was $500 cheaper. In my view the Canon was not worth the $500 difference.

Another Note. Glass is not something you should skimp on.