File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey /p/, what is the best replacement for the Canon kit lens? One of my friends asks for an advice, but I don't own a Canon and looking at resolution charts on PhotoZone doesn't help much.

So far I found these lenses that fall within her budget:
- Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro
- Sigma 18-50/2.8 DC
- Tamron 17-50/2.8
- Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM (IS will probably compensate the 1-2 stop difference in aperture, but I think she likes shallow DOF)


pic related
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Wait until October. EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for $200.

Also have her pick up a 50mm f/1.8 since everyone should own a 50mm f/1.8.
>> Anonymous
>>70700
I have doubts about the optics in the stabilized 18-55 being better than the regular 18-55 - which is already regarded as the worst kit lens on the market. Plus, she wants the lens now before she spends the money on pendants and sushi :D

As for the 50mm prime, she already has it.
>> Anonymous
Buy a 7-40/4L
>> Anonymous
>>70721
I considered that, but apparently it won't be much of an upgrade. She doesn't really care for full-frame compatibility and weather seals; so 17-40L is just too expensive and heavy for the advantages it offers.
>> Anonymous
The Sigma and Tamron options are supposed to be excellent optically but the build quality sucks. No FTM focusing is balls.
>> Anonymous
The Sigma 18-50/2.8 has high chromatic aberrations, i woulnd't buy that if you are into high contrasts or outdoor photography. The Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better suited, but of course has it's own little problems (focus tends to go off into the distance in the corners). It is however a lot cheaper than comparable Canon offerings.

The Canon EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS USM is a bit disappointing, especially at 17mm. The 17-40/4L however shares some of the same problems at 17mm, but is generally of a higher quality. People looking for a good (and expensive Lens) are either buying the 17-40/4L (if they someday want to upgrade to a full sensor camera with EF mount) or the 17-55/2.8 IS USM if they are sure they are going to stick with EF-S cameras.

In fact the 17-40/4L is one of the most affordable L lenses you can get and a very good lens to walk around with.
>> Anonymous
>>70739
>>70735
Thanks. I'll tell her to look more closely at the Tamron, probably - the Canon 17-55 is too expensive.

As for the FTM, I don't think she uses manual focusing to that extent that it will become an issue. (Personally, I have no problem focusing even with the much-maligned "focus-by-wire" system if it's responsive enough)
>> Anonymous
My beef with no FTM is that you will have a piece of your lens near the front physically rotating when you're focusing which is very annoying if you tend to hold the front of the lens when taking a shot. It's also annoying to have to turn off AF when taking a shot then have to be careful not to bump the focusing ring because on non-FTM lenses they are usually not damped which means the slightest nudge will mess up focus.

The Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8-4 that I use has all these annoyances but I cope because I can't afford the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 and the 17-40mm is too slow at f/4.
>> Anonymous
>>70674


mmkay, Get the 17-85 and a 50mm Standard, it will cost you maybe less than 500 bucks.
>> Anonymous
I have the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro, right now its my favorite lens because of the wide angle + macro. Heres a sample.
>> Anonymous
I bought the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 DC Macro to replace my kit lens, and so far it's been great.
The build quality is surprisingly good, too - well, at least compared to the kit lens.