New lens for my Canon 450D.

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

I have the Canon 450D with the twin lens kit. I would like to upgrade from the 18-55mm lens which I got with the camera, to something a lot better and sharper. What can anyone recommend. I can go to about $1000 AUD. (less would be better!). Thanks for all your suggestions.<br>

Helen.</p>

<p>Lots of good choices, what do you primarily like to shoot? </p>

<p>How about the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? That lens is better and sharper than the EF-S 18-55mm IS, but it might slightly exceed your budget (I'm not sure what the conversion rate is between AUD to USD). Another option is the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, which is also going come in at close to the budget. The 15-85mm (which I have never tried) is supposedly very sharp and it has a much larger focal range than the 18-55mm kit lens.</p>

<p>I would recommend the Canon 17-40mm f/4L. As an L series lens it should be sharp enough for you. It is also small enough to be a good lens for everyday use.</p>

<p>Helen, For my money the best replacement for your 18-55mm kit lens would be the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. With good technique your kit lens can produce sharp pictures but the 5.6 at the long end makes it so that you have to work hard to keep from introducing camera movement in to cause unsharpness. The 2.8 constant aperture of the Tamron helps enormously, including the ability to isolate subjects from background. There are 2 versions of the Tamron lens, one with VC (vibration Control) at around $650 US and one without for around $460. For me I would choose the one without VC because it is less expensive, lighter and a little sharper and makes a very well balanced match with the 450D. The Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 lens is the lens of choice for a lot of wedding and event photographers. When I tested one against my Canon 17-55mm 2.8 which is heavier and much more expensive the Tamron held up very well. Good luck.</p>

<p>The 17-55 offers some significant advantages to shooting, but is quite expensive (over $1000 US).</p>

<p>Other options include the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM (Sigma's version of image stabilization)</p>

<p>HSM is Sigma's version of USM (Ultrasonic focus motor). Sigma's IS is called "OS", and I don't know if their 17-50 has it yet. Tamron has a 17-50 with "VC", though. (Their image stabilization is called "vibration compensation".)</p>

<p>you want something that's 'a lot sharper'? the best zoom in that range i know of is the 17-55 (f 2.8). you can't do better and (i don't think) you can even match this optic.<br>

otherwise, recommend a couple primes. you would be able to outfit yourself with, say, a 28 or 35, a 50, and a 100 for about the same money as a 17-55.<br>

if you want 'a lot sharper' you have to go with a top-drawer (read: expensive) zoom or a top-drawer (usually not as pricey) prime (or two, or three).</p>

<p>Tamron 17-50 2.8 but your cheap 18-55IS kit lens is already a pretty sharp lens<br>

www.photozone.de</p>

<p>Thanks for all your suggestions. Tommy I mostly shoot nature, landscape.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>HSM is Sigma's version of USM (Ultrasonic focus motor). Sigma's IS is called "OS", and I don't know if their 17-50 has it yet. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>The new Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 HSM OS has "Optical Stabilization". The Sigma makes a nice choice. I have the older Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5 model. I think the new one would make a great choice. The two focal lengths I find myself shooting with most with this lens are 17mm and 70mm. I would not want to give up that extra reach to a lens that went 55mm or 50mm lens at its longest setting. The Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50 are really nice lenses, but do not discount the value of those extra 20mm.<br>

The Canon 15-85 is also a nice choice, but it's also a lot slower than the Sigma 17-70.</p>

<p>Helen I am not really much of a landscape shooter but for that application you may want something ultrawide ( Canon 10-22, Sigma 10-20 etc ) I would suggest you first think about what your missing with the 18-55, you mention sharper but is that all your looking for? How do you like the focal range? The Canon 17-55 or Tamron 17-50 will give you faster aperture but will have the same range but both will produce very high quality photos.<br /> <br /> Assuming you do not need to go wider you may also think about a 2 lens combo of either a Tamron 17-50 + Canon 70-200 F4. This would provide you a long range with very high quality throughout and the 2 lenses would fit under your 1000 budget. A bonus is they both have the same filter thread so you can share filters. You may however consider a 100mm macro lens instead of the 70-200. </p>

<p>Helen I was just looking through your photos, you have done very well with the gear you have. A lot of very nice shots and some great travels. Antarctica is a dream destination of mine, I finally did Galapagos which was always on my list of places to see and I hope to visit Antarctica some time in the near future.<br>

Back to the OP. After looking through your work you may really be happy with the new 15-85, I hear its very good but I would wait until the price drops a bit or even a 24-105 would suit you well depending if you want more wide angle or more reach in a single high quality lens. </p>

<p>I just looked at your portfolio. Very nice. I suggest a macro prime, maybe in the 90-105 mm range.</p>

<p>+1 to the 15-85.</p>

<p>It's got the focal range, the better IS, very good colors and contrast and it is solidly built.</p>

<p>The only reason to buy the 17-55 over it is the f2.8 and you don't seem to need that. (And if you do you might want to look at some primes...)</p>

<p>I would go for Tamron 17-50, and use the spare for a macro lens.</p>

<p>The one you already have is sharp, but it's too slow especially if you need to use it for portrait at the longer end. Personally, I wouldn't suggest you Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.5 as it's just less than 1 stop faster than your 18-55 across the range.</p>

<p>Canon 17-40 certainly has good color, contrast, and built, but the focal and aperture range are somewhat limiting for crop body. It's a different beast if you use it as wideangle lens on fullframe.</p>

 

<p>I have zero knowledge concerning 3rd party lens but I can tell you my lens of choice is Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. It's very versitile as you can shoot it inside wide open at 2.8 and have IS! It's a winner. But after looking at your picture, I would think the Canon 17-40 would work just as good for you. Since you mostly shoot outside, the 17-40 cranked down a bit would also do you good. Final answer 17-55 2.8 IS. BTW mine cost me right at 950.00 US. v/r Buffdr</p>

Today I got to play with the 15-85 and am very impressed. Only if you really want/need a 2.8 I'd consider the 17-55.

 

But that's just me.

Go for a Tamron 18mm-200mm wide angel tele-photo lens £169.90 its a great lens shooting with an iso of 400- 800 in low light you get great pictures have a look at the results