by ʇolɐǝz ǝɥʇ qoq

Submit your Photo
Hall of Fame

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Am bit new to DSLR .Interested in landscape

My problem

  1. I feel kit lens came along with my 650D is not giving me sharper images.(Culprit might be myself)
  2. Budget problem for upgrading to Canon lens
  3. Going back to my home country soon .So need to decide fast.Here things are cheaper comparatively.

My Options.

  1. Get rid of kit lens and buy Sigma 8-16mm-f45-56-dc-hsm AND 18-200mm-f35-63-ii-dc-os-hsm or 18-250mm-f35-63-dc-os-macro-hsm. Any inputs for above lens?Are these good?Is it worth buying ?
  2. buy Sigma 8-16mm-f45-56-dc-hsm and be happy with kit lens.
  3. Be happy with kit lens and learn more techniques.

Which option should I opt for ?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by mattdm, dpollitt, MikeW, Paul Cezanne, Imre May 1 '13 at 19:07

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

In general, superzoom lenses (18-200 etc) will be less sharp than the kit lens - they're produced to the same quality standards, but the additional compromises required for the larger zoom range require sacrifices elsewhere. – Philip Kendall Apr 30 '13 at 16:02
Buy the Canon 50mm f/1.8 or 40mm f/2.8 lens. Use them for a few months. Then revisit this question. – dpollitt Apr 30 '13 at 16:10
you've to specify your needs, do you want a zoom lens or you can use a prime lens? – akram Apr 30 '13 at 18:59
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Spend $100 on the 50mm F1.8. Take photos with it. Its a nice lens, very inexpensive. If you still think your photos are not sharp, you will know that its you, not the lens. If you like the new photos, then think about spending more on a better lens.

I replaced my kit lens with the EFS 17-55 F2.8 and love it. It changed everything about my photos. But its also $1200.

You should consider two additional options:

1) get a good off camera flash. 2) rent a lens and try it for a week or so. and have good reputations.

share|improve this answer
Thank you.i well buy this lens for sure.And how good is sigma wide lens i mentioned? – Kozlov May 1 '13 at 2:20
The Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 DII holds its own optically against the EF 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and costs less than half as much. At f/2.8, the Tamron is slightly sharper from 17mm to about 28mm, it is even a bit more so at 35mm. At 50/55mm the Canon is sharper by about the same amount as the Tamron is at 35mm. Here is the comparison:… – Michael Clark May 1 '13 at 3:38
And the DxO comparison. This one has the 17-55 slightly better at 35mm, but both virtually identical at 50/55mm.… – Michael Clark May 1 '13 at 4:08
With the money you save between the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II you could buy an EF 50mm f/1.4 and still come out $450 ahead. The EF 50mm f/1.8 II is an excellent value. It is a below average prime lens. It's only opinion, but I think many of those who feel this lens is excellent have never used a quality prime. The EF 50mm f/1.4 has smoother bokeh, faster, more accurate AF, usable manual focus that's also FT and a build quality that will outlast 3 or 4 of the plastic fantastics. – Michael Clark May 1 '13 at 12:20
@MichaelClark - I agree that the 50mm f/1.8 isn't high on the list of primes. I also agree it is a good value. For most consumers the biggest thing is that it opens up their eyes to what a wide aperture can do, and it does so at a very reasonable price that most can afford. If you want a great value plus great optics, the 40mm f/2.8 is what I would recommend. It just won't give you that same huge aperture that can really teach someone new the same things. – dpollitt May 1 '13 at 13:24

When I bought my first Canon DSLR several years ago the kit EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II that came with my camera was horrible. The succeeding IS versions that replaced it were much better, but still leave a lot to be desired.

I had already bought an EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens as well (very good value for the price in my opinion). Maybe I just got a bad copy of the 18-55. Maybe I got lucky with a very good copy of the 55-250. In terms of optics the EF 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS is pretty much the equal of the more expensive EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6, it just is limited to APS-C cameras and is one half the price of the 70-300. For a more in depth look at the 55-250, see my answer at this question. Here is a comparison of the two lenses.

At that point in time my budget was extremely limited and the solution for me was the Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II. Tamron had an instant rebate going at the time and I picked mine up for about 15% less than the current market price. In terms of optics it is every bit as good as a couple of subsequently purchased lower tier "L" lenses. I got a lot of great images with that lens for several years. If it weren't more or less on permanent loan to my brother-in-law I would still use it occasionally when the need to shoot in that focal length range on a crop body arises. The biggest downside was that it got me addicted to constant aperture f/2.8 zoom lenses! For a more detailed look at the AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II see my answer at this question.

You can compare the EF 17-40mm f/4L and the Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II here. At most focal lengths the Tamron is just as sharp at f/2.8 as the 17-40 "L" is at f/4. My own experience with both these lenses has been very similar. When stopped down to f/4, the Tamron 17-50 holds its own with the 24-105 over their common focal lengths. Again, this mirrors my own experience with both these lenses on crop bodies.

DxO Mark comparison. For whatever reason, there is no test data for the 17-40.

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
I can't resist picking on your word "horrible" over there. Come from a compact ultrazoom camera with a 1/2,5 size sensor to use any DSLR with any lens is bound to turn out excellent image quality. – Esa Paulasto Apr 30 '13 at 22:52
I do not agree with the above statement. Small sensor does not equal poor image quality. – dpollitt Apr 30 '13 at 23:25
This answer is all opinion. "Horrible" and "optics... as good as a L series" need references or substantiation. – Pat Farrell May 1 '13 at 1:22
My copy of the EF 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 had a soft spot in the left center of the frame in every picture taken with it. At f/5-f/8 things both closer and further from the camera (even when closer to the edges and/or corners) were in proper focus and that one spot would still be soft. This was the non-IS older version of this lens and it was pretty well known to be a substandard lens, even for a kit lens. I apparently got one of the worst copies of it ever manufactured, and wanted to return it to Canon for exchange but they said since it was bought in a kit I would have to return the camera also. – Michael Clark May 1 '13 at 3:03
I +1'd this (unfortunately only bringing the rank back to 0) for the comment about the original kit lens being horrible. It may be opinion, but it's also true! I got one with my first DSLR - the Canon 350D and I hated that lens! Truly horrible. I can't speak for the updated stabilised models, but the non-IS was a heap of horse dung. I replaced it with the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM and it was like going from light to dark. A world of difference!! The 17-55 is an amazing lens which I'd recommend to anyone looking to replace their kit lens. – Mike May 1 '13 at 11:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.