>> |
Anonymous
The Tamron 17-50 mentioned is very good as a replacement for the kit lens.
You can get the cheap improved version of the kit lens with IS and better build quality now too, but that's not much of an upgrade unless you only want to be able to do more handheld work with longer shutters and therefore want a cheap IS lens (it is good value though).
The Sigma lens range has some nice "jack of all trades" in the 17-70ish range that do near-macro work and are pretty good all round, but as you have a true macro lens and a nice telephoto there isn't a need for it. The Sigma lenses are not bad at all. Worth looking into as an option for most in general.
The Canon 17-85 is quite good and has IS. For the price it is worth while, but you don't get the aperture you get with the Tamron. Otherwise it's got a better focal range and IS.
Overall I'd say go for the Tamron if you've not got the money for the extortionately priced 17-55 IS and/or you think the 17-40 L isn't bright enough for you at f4.
Bang for buck you will not regret the Tamron. The only thing to watch for is the QC of them. Take that advice someone gave you about testing it as you might get a bad copy. Be prepared to send them back for a check up. It happens all the time though, so it's not something you'll find impossible to deal with.
|