Canon 18-55mm IS replacement

Paul_Canning · 21 Feb 2011 at 12:19

Looking to replace my kit lens with something a bit more substantial.

Really trying to get into my gig photography (just local bands I know) so ideally need wide angle and speed (low aperture)

I was considering the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but someone said it was a tad soft?

I was also considering selling the 18-55mm and my old Canon 70-210mm USM and get a Sigma 18-200mm OS that would cover the range of both lenses.

Any recommendations?

budget would ideally be about £300 tops

(I don't mind 2nd or 3rd hand!)

feriso · 21 Feb 2011 at 12:29

Well the Tamron Non VC is good the VC (like IS) is soft so i would go with that version but might not be fast enough for gig photography.

You might want to consider the 50mm/1.8 but that might be too narrow FoV

Alternative is Sigma 30mm/1.4 slightly wider and faster and might be more suited to your needs

Paul_Canning · 21 Feb 2011 at 13:31

I already have the 50mm f1.8 and use it a fair bit

but you're right, its too narrow, esp. on a cropped sensor.

I recently got a Sigma 28mm f2.8 m42 mount from the 'Bay, just awaiting an adapter to turn up. It's manual focus, but that should simply force me to learn to focus well

I'd prefer to replace the kit lens with another zoom lens, for a bit more versatility when out and about.

p.s. did you mean the non-VC is better?

Namistai · 21 Feb 2011 at 13:50

Non-VC is considered better as it's sharper. It's also lighter and cheaper, but of course lacks VC - so it depends if that's important to you. To be honest, on this length of lens I don't think it's necessary. It might get you a few shots that the non-VC wouldn't at the extreme end of handheld shots in low light, but nothing that makes it worth the trade-offs. I took some acceptably sharp shots last week with the non-VC at 1/13s @ 50mm, handheld - it just takes a steady hand.

If you want to upgrade the kit lens anyway then the Tamron 17-50 non-VC is probably the best value replacement (i.e. not the best, but when money is a consideration then it has to be a very strong contender). I recently got one and I'm very pleased with it in almost every regard. The only downside is the noisy auto-focus - not a problem for gig photography though!

You can gain an extra stop by going for a prime though. That might be an important consideration for gig photography, but you may be comfortable without this based on experience.

.:SAmSuNG:. · 21 Feb 2011 at 15:34

Recently upgraded to the non VC tamron. Its nice and fast aswell as feeling a lot better built than the 18-55 IS. Its also a fair bit heavier which balances out my 40D.

feriso · 21 Feb 2011 at 15:55

As you can see I did mean the non-VC is better; next week I'll be ordering one (hopefully) and at £230 its damn good value for money.

I think if I 'upgrade' from that it'll probably be L / Primes

Paul_Canning · 21 Feb 2011 at 16:46

Thanks for the insight folks.

Will have to see if either of the local camera shops have one in stock and how much they'll take my kit lens for.

.:SAmSuNG:. · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:00

feriso said:
As you can see I did mean the non-VC is better; next week I'll be ordering one (hopefully) and at £230 its damn good value for money.

I think if I 'upgrade' from that it'll probably be L / Primes

I agree there the only reason I see myself changing is for some L glass but that wont be for along time if indeed i ever do.

adamau5 · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:05

i have the tamron non vc and it is tack sharp - easily the sharpest lens in my bag, not sure if i got lucky or thats just how they are but its sharper than my 50mm f1.4 canon at most most apertures (admitedly this is on a crop sensor)

see my flickr for examples. Even down at 2.8 the sharpness is amazing!

this one was at f4.5

danza · 21 Feb 2011 at 17:57

The Tamron 17-50mm (non VC) I had was a spanking lens. Just been through some of the shots I took when I had mine before I sold off all my gear a while back (getting back in with Nikon this time), and it's very sharp from f4.5 out. A little soft at 2.8, but very useful. More versatile than the 17-40L, and sharper at the longer end of the zoom when compared. I found my 17-40 to be a bit sharper at wider angles, but there really wasn't a lot in it.

It's definitely back on the shortlist of lenses I must buy.