replacement lens

[colin_cracknell]

<p>I have a 450D and I am thinking of replacing the 18-55mm kit lens with a lens to compliment my 100-400L, looking at the 17-85 F4.5-5.6 and the 24-100L f4<br>

any comments?</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>If something else will work, I would suggest the 17-55 IS f/2.8 over the 17-85. And I'm sure you meant the 24-<strong>105</strong>L f/4.0. I don't own one, but most here give it high marks. However, it won't get you the wide angle like the 17 end of the zoom you are considering. Do you need the additional focal length of the 24-105?</p>

[darryl_klein]

<p>Ideal would be 10-22 EFS and 24-105. If you can save up for the 10-22, Id go with the 24-105 and wait for the wide end.</p>

<p>24-105 is a stunner as is the 10-22.</p>

 

[anders_carlsson]

<p>How about the new Canon EF-S 15-85 or Tamron's 17-50/2.8?</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>The EFS 17-85 is not in the same performance league as your 100-400. At one point I had one and used it on my first cropped sensor DSLR and the results were less than stellar. While it is a fine lens for certain uses (e.g. - a "one lens solution" for people who mostly share jpgs and perhaps letter size prints) it has "issues: corner softness, greater than normal vignetting, more CA than normal, more barrel/pincushion distortion, limited range of useful apertures.</p>

<p>The EFS 17-55mm lens is a much better lens by every measure, though it would leave you with a gap between 55mm and 100mm. There isn't a great way to cover the full cropped sensor FL range from wide (e.g. 17mm or 18mm) to 100mm is one lens without giving up some things that you may not want to sacrifice.</p>

<p>The 24-105 is an interesting option, and I did also shoot that on a cropped sensor body at one point. It is a fine performer there, but do keep in mind that 24mm is barely wide at all on these cameras.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[len_kocurek]

<p>If you want the general focal lenght of the 18-55 I strongly suggest you consider the EF 17-40L. It's a sharp lens.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Yes, the 24-105 is a wonderful lens -- for a 35mm sensor body. It is only a short normal lens at 24mm on the APS-C bodies however. Its equivalent on APS-C was the EF-S 17-85mm IS, which many of us love (and a few despise*), but that is now discontinued. If you can find new, old stock it may still be available here and there, but it has been replaced by two new lenses: the EF-S 15-85mm IS (at $800, more than the old one) and a roughly equivalent priced EF-S 18-135mm IS. Reviews on these are mixed, a little like the lens they replaced, but some are very positive.</p>

<p>*G Dan is not among the lovers of the EF-S 17-85mm. Its flaws are mostly the ones it shares with all zooms with long ranges, and are easily fixed in post-processing, but are rarely field relevant unless you are trying to shoot architecture. Unlike G. Dan, I have regularly printed to 13x19" from this lens. He is right, that the 17-85 is not in the same league as the 100-400mm, nor does it cost anything like that lens, which is unusually good considering the age of the design.</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>I would recommend the 17-40L to give you a real wideangle, and, with the saved cash get the 50 2.5 macro, 85 1.8 or even the 50 1.8 to fill the gap. All these are excellent lenses and would give you a good spread of focal lengths. If you ever decided to go FF all these are transferable.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>I'd get the <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">15-85</a> .</p>

<p>However I shoot lowlight with primes and don't mind a bit of vignetting (which disappears when stopped down) or barrel distortion. My usage would be mostly daylight city (details) shooting.</p>

<p>I do mind wide angle (without being ultra), color, contrast, sharpness, build quility, tele and IS.</p>

<p>Alternatives to me are <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-17-40mm-f-4.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">17-40</a> and <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">17-55</a> .</p>

<p>The 17-40 has a better maximum magnification, slightly better build quiality and will mount on a full frame. It might have better color and contrast but very marginally. It might be a tad less sharp.</p>

<p>The 17-55 is faster, might have less distortion but is built worse, might be less sharp, has less magnification, has more flare and is shorter & less wide. It might have a tad less color and contrast but it's owners won't agree with me...</p>

<p>(Note, if price is an issue either get the 15-85 or the 17-40. The 17-55 is slightly more expensive.)</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>what about primes?</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>I'm really surprised no one asked this yet. It's impossible to answer this without first knowing "What do you intend to Shoot?". </p>

<p>And under what lighting and conditions? Several fine lenses have been suggested, but any of them could be a bad choice depending on what you are doing.</p>

<p> </p>

[colin_cracknell]

<p>I had thought about primes but wouls prefer a zoom so not so much to carry around.<br>

I am taking all sorts of shots, people, buildings, wildlife, flowers landscapes etc<br>

Lighting inside and out with and without flash<br>

really looking for 1 that will do it all<br>

thanks for responces so far</p>