time to dump the kit lenses, looking for suggestions

<p>I currently have the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses that came with my two year old T2i as well as a 100-400L (4.5-5.6 IS), I have never been happy with the 18-55, it's flat, dull and lifeless and quite frankly poorly constructed. The 55-250 isn't a lot better, with the addition of a new 7D in the backpack, I'm thinking it's time to replace the kit lenses with at least one L. I'd prefer to go with a single wide range zoom, I do mostly nature and landscape, but charity work finds me doing portraits on occasion as well, what are people using?</p>

<p>Don't constrain yourself to lenses that have a red ring, there are some good Canon lenses (like the 17-55/2.8 zoom or any of the 50mm lenses) which don't have the 'L' designation, and good third party lenses too.</p>

<p>Canon's 50/1.8 will work well for portraits - perhaps even too sharp, as it will show up wrinkles, but you can fix that in post-processing ;-). I would get that first of all unless you really feel the need to spend lots of money right now.</p>

<p>I second the recommendation on the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM! That's a great lens, arguably an "L" in EF-S clothing... Another good lens is the EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. While it doesn't have the wide aperture, it goes to a wider focal length than the 17-55, and almost gets you to the bottom end of your 100-400 (another good lens!). Both of these lenses get great reviews, and are very favorably compared to lenses with the red ring.</p>

<p>My two main lenses for my 7D are the EF-S 17-55 and the EF 100-400. I also have the 18-135 kit lens, the 50mm f/1.8 "Nifty Fifty" (hard to argue with a lens for $100...), and a Tamron SP 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC USD. The latter three don't get much use any more, since I shoot mostly wildlife and some landscapes.</p>

<p>70-200 f4.0 + 17-55 f.28 would give you high IQ over your entire current range of focal lengths at a reasonable cost. Spring for the IS version of the 70-200 if your budget allows.</p>

For my 7D, i have the EF-S 10-22, the 24-105L and the 100-400L. That covers the whole range from 10 to 400mm.

These lenses work well for me since I usually don't work in low light without a flash. If I need the extra speed, I do have

the EF-S 60mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8. The 24-105L stays on my camera most of the time because I really like the

convenience of that zoom range. Some don't think it's wide enough for everyday shooting, but it matches up well with

what I need.

<p>How can a modern lens be "flat, dull, and lifeless"?</p>

<p>I have made a number of fine 13"x19" prints using my 18-55mm IS f/3.5-5.6. I will admit that my 70-200mm f/4 L IS is a better lens but the kit lens isn't that bad. </p>

<p>When looking at new lenses I have decided to add the Tokina 11-16mm zoom to my kit. I decided to go this route instead of going with the 15-85mm zoom. The 15-85mm is a great choice if you want a wider range than the kit lens.</p>

<p>If the 18-55 has been wide enough then I recommend the 17-40/4 L for it's superior image quality. The 70-200/4 L is a no brainer, reasonable weight, affordable, and very high image quality. </p>

<p>If you do want a wider lens, the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 seems to be the lens of choice.</p>

<p>I'm a Nikon shooter, but I don't think that makes much difference. I think you should try some primes, except for the very wide end where no one makes them.</p>

<p>I use a 12-24/4 (Tokina), 30/1.4 (Sigma), 50/1.8, 85/1.8 and 180/2.8 (Nikon, but Canon has essentially the same lenses). The fast primes open up a whole different world of shooting, from portraits to indoor sports. At the least, go grab the 50/1.8 (it's quite inexpensive) and see what you're missing.</p>

<p>If your 18-55 is the non-IS version, then it would indeed be lacking in image quality. However, if it is the IS version, then you're dissing one of Canon's biggest bang-for-the-buck lenses. It's true that it's a plastic piece of junk, but its image quality is amazingly good, as is the performance of its image stabilization. A few of the photos I sell were shot with this lens. I sometimes carry the 18-55IS in preference to one of my L lenses when I want a small/light rig with me "just in case."</p>

<p>And while I have no personal experience with the 55-250, the performance results I'm looking at on slrgear.com are quite impressive, at least on the short end -- admittedly less so at 250mm.</p>

<p>You may feel that a red ring is going to make your photography spring to life. However, I would suggest all you will get for your investment is a more nicely built lens -- but not necessarily better photos. If I were you, I would work on technique -- more stable support, better aperture selections, better focus, better use of the IS (including turning it off if you're using a tripod), better sharpening selections in post, etc. I say that not out of disrespect, but because I find it hard to believe any photographer using good technique cannot take a good shot with either of these two lenses.</p>

<p>Frankly, the requirement of:<br>

"<em>prefer to go with a single wide range zoom</em>"<br>

and that you want to avoid<br>

<em>" dull and lifeless (IQ) and quite frankly poorly constructed"</em><br>

implies that a <strong>EF-s 15-85/3.5-5.6 IS USM</strong> may be the best choice for you. It's IQ is quite good, and build (for an EF-S lens) is decent, while it's range is adequate for 99% of what you're likely to need. Since you also have a 100-400L, it will complement the L nicely, and give you a fairly wide overall range of (FF equiv) 24- 640mm with <em>only</em> a (FF equiv again) 137-> 160mm <em>gap</em>, which you would be unlikely to miss significantly.</p>

<p> </p>