I was hoping to upgrade from my current setup of lenses and wanted your guys’ opinion. I currently have a Canon 60D and a Tamron 18-270 VC (non-PZD), a Tamron 28-75 f2.8, and a Canon 50mm f1.8. As I learned more about photography I realized the importance of having good glass and wanted to upgrade my setup. I really like the versatility of my 18-270 in that I never have to switch lenses, but I know that a lot of clarity is sacrificed for that range. My 28-75 is great, but it’s not wide enough for me at 28 on a crop body. I would also like a bit more telephoto range as I do like to shoot wildlife. I was thinking of selling the 18-270 and 28-75 and replacing them with the Canon 70-300mm IS USM and the Canon 15-85. I wanted your guys’ opinion on how much clearer you guys think the images would be with the 15-85 vs. the 18-270 or the 28-75, and whether or not it would be worth it to switch. My other thought was to sell the 18-270 and get a 70-300, keep the 28-75 (as it's much faster than the 15-85), and get a wide angle solution like a Tamron 10-24 or Sigma 10-20, but I like the idea of a 15-85 as a walk-around and 70-300 for wildlife.
Aeolus wrote:
You mean keep the 28-75 and add the 17-50? or sell the 28-75 and use the 17-50 as a primary lens?
Yeah, the 28-75 is for a FF body. Most, like you and I, think it's not wide enough on a crop body, so you'll want the 17-50 for a walk around. As for the long end there are many options - everything from the cheap but very good 55-250IS, to the 70-300IS, or a 70-200/4 and on up from there.
Aeolus wrote:
Probably $400-500ish above the value of the 18-270 + 28-75 after selling.
Okay so you have about $1200 total to spend, you are a few hundred short of what I would recommend which is:
Tamron 17-50 - $300'ish used
Canon 70-300L - $1275'ish used
You would be really happy with these if you can save the dough for the 70-300L...if you can't swing it then get the cheaper 70-300IS, or if you don't need longer than 200 get a 70-200/4IS for approx $900 used.
If you decide to go with 70-300IS you'll have some money for some other good cheapies - 85/1.8, 100/2, or 35/2. It all depends on what FL you like to shoot. Good luck.
I think you are looking to replace one mediocre super zoom with another similar set of lenses. I think the canon 17-55 IS (used if possible) plus a 70-200 F4L IS and a teleconverter is a better idea. Also keep the 50.
If the canon 17-55 IS is too much, get the tamron 17-50 (either version)
Your choices.
walk around zooms
Canon 15-85
Canon 17-55 2.8 or 3rd party versions Tammy 17-50 or Sig 17-50
telephoto zooms
70-200 f4 Lis
70-300 Lis
I own both the 17-55 & 15-85.
I use the 15-85 as my primary WA lens, as it goes wider and longer than the 17-55. I use the 17-55 for special situations. They both will give you great IQ
I owned the 70-200 F4 lis, it a great lens if you dont need it for low light situations.
I also had a 70-300 Lis for a few weeks on loan, a bit heavier than the f4 with a 100mm longer reach.
The IQ some fill are equal, others favor one over the other, for me, I felt the F4 had a bit better IQ but not by much.
I don't think with your budget and what you have identified as your goals that you are going to improve your kit all that much. It would probably be best to save a few more $$ and buy 2 quality lenses or one quality lens now.
I don't think that the 70-300 IS is really a significant upgrade for you. Check out some of the IQ samples from TDP compared to the 18-270 you would replace:
Even if you add a 1.4x teleconverter, the 70-200 is better than the 70-300, even when the 70-300 is stopped down to f/8. These aren't real world photos but it should give you an idea of their relative quality.
The 17-55 2.8 and 15-85 are both quality lenses. I don't think one is necessarily better than the other, just different. I would choose between them based on your focal length needs and what kind of f-stops you are wanting to have.
saneproduction wrote:
I think you are looking to replace one mediocre super zoom with another similar set of lenses. I think the canon 17-55 IS (used if possible) plus a 70-200 F4L IS and a teleconverter is a better idea. Also keep the 50.
If the canon 17-55 IS is too much, get the tamron 17-50 (either version)
I agree or get the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM
(But a lot of people like the Canon 15-85 for range)
Thank you all for the replies and advice. Much appreciated. I guess I didn't realize that the 70-300 non-L was such a tiny jump up, and that I really needed to get an L to see a difference. I wasn't prepared to begin to think about spending that much on a lens at this point. However, after a day of letting it sink in, I see the value in it, especially since L's retain their value so well.
At this point I'm leaning towards getting a Tammy 17-50 and the 70-300L. I cannot remotely afford the 15-85 and 70-300L, so I'll have to forego that 20mm gap, which hopefully shouldn't be too hard to overcome by walking forward or backwards a few feet. I'll have to figure out if I can squeeze out the 70-300L, it really seems like a great lens. I also considered the 100-400mm, as my wildlife shots could use that extra 100mm sometimes, but I suppose I can always get a 1.4 or 2x TC to get there, as I can't really have a setup without 50mm-100mm.
