Upgrade T2i kit lens? Sharper zoom?

I

illusiumd

Member
I'm sure people before me have come here wanting advice on upgrading their t2i kit lens, so if there's another thread please direct me. I would like something sharper and better focusing - USM right?

I was researching a bunch of lenses and I'm having a hard time finding a good zoom under 600 that's radically sharper than the 18.55mm. I don't see justifying a big purchase for more "features" when the sharpness/image quality aren't improved upon. I also have the nifty fifty.

Of course, I'd maybe better off going prime? But I really would like to go upgrade at the "walkaround" level ...

So I guess the choice I'm dealing with is selling the kit lens and going with either the Sigma 17-50 mm f28 EX or Canon 17-40 F4L. Are these lenses insanely better than the kits lens in terms of image quality and sharpness?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Short answer: No.

Long answer: The 18-55 is not a bad lens, so there's actually nothing out there that's "insanely better". Especially btwn f5.6-f8, the kit lens is pretty sharp. Other factors are harder to quantify, such as contrast, chromatic aberations, wide angle distortion etc.
 
The 17-40 is a nice lens, but unless you plan to upgrade to full frame soon it is not the best choice.

Cons:
A bit slow (f4)
A little short (really needs to zoom to 50 or 55)
Expensive

Pros:
Works on full frame
Nice build quality
Nice and sharp even wide open
Constant aperture
Weather sealed (when using UV filter)
Fast quiet AF

Honestly I bought the 17-40 and shot it for almost a year before I traded it plus cash for a 17-55 2.8 IS. That is what I reccomend to do from the start. Look for one on craigslist used for $850. Get one with without a lot of inernal dust if possible. Lenses with UV filters tend to not suck as much dust. You could also go with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 VC or the Sigma 17-50 OS for around $600. For me, the canon was worth the extra cash.
 
For best results with the kit lens, keep it at 24mm between f/4 and f/8.

I've done side by side tests comparing the Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5-6 IS kit lens and the Canon 17-40mm L lens. In video mode, you can't really tell any difference whatsoever, at least in terms of resolution. The L lens is heavier and looks cooler though, and is much more resistant to flares and such.
 
illusiumd said:
good zoom under 600

"walkaround" level ...

Thanks
Click to expand...

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC. Very sharp and the extra weight over the 18-55 makes for a smoother walk around lens. Good build and value. Test before buying and examine the files on your computer before taking it home may be advisable. That's what I did to be sure it's a good copy of the lens.
 
I'd second the tamron 17-50. NonVC has worked fine for me. In video mode, you're really just paying for the extra light. Focal length is about the same and the difference in sharpness isn't noticeable in video mode.

As far as canons go, the new 15-85 is super sharp for stills, but slower than the tamron (although the same speed as the 18-55)
 
dust'n the callipygous said:
As far as canons go, the new 15-85 is super sharp for stills, but slower than the tamron (although the same speed as the 18-55)
Click to expand...

Once you get used to a constant aperture zoom there is really no going back to variable aperture. The Tamron 17-50 is great. Next I'll need a Canon 70-200 to go with it.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that for video mode, things get sketchy no matter what lens you use, unless you adopt a head-shot mentality of shooting. With these cameras, it's rarely advisable to go outside the zone that would classify as a head shot or waist-up shot, and the reason for it is as in-focus details appear smaller to the camera, it's moire issues somehow ruin the detail of the shot - even if rainbows or lines aren't directly occurring - and cause the video to appear worse than the quality you'd get from a not-so-modern camcorder. I'd love to be praising these cameras left and right, but they have so many extreme weaknesses that it really is very fraudulent seeming, and as I continue to do tests, I get more and more frustrated at what these cameras can't capture or do.

But with that said, as long as you stick with a head shot/waist shot mentality (wether you're shooting a person or not), things should look pretty good. I'm surprised almost every time how much of a difference it makes in the sharpness if I make sure to shoot with a close-up mentality in mind, and all I use are my kit lens and my 50mm 1.8. Now, one thing that helps a bit is making sure that whatever lens you use keeps your videos at ISO 100 or 200. Any ISO higher than that really begins to degrade the quality and induce a lot of noise, which is why using lenses with apertures like 1.8 and 1.4 can improve your video quality a bit. Sadly, those lenses sacrifice having a zoom range or IS, so you really have to weigh your purposes.

In all honesty, I think one of the most important things in videography/photography is having a handy all-in-one lens that enables you to quickly capture what you need to. In that sense, the kit lens can be a little restricting in the zoom department, which is why I recommend the 60D kit lens, 18-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS, which is I think is usually $300 used. There's also a 18-200mm 3.5-5.6 IS which goes for about $400 used. In essence, these kit lenses may sound like a untrustworthy deal, but the quality of the glass holds its weight against lesser brands, and without a doubt, a camera with such an extreme range and IS is always a great tool. It may not be the absolute best for low light work because of the apertures, but if you work in low light for videography, chances are you'd need a lighting set up to make things look cinematic anyway - there goes the need for a low aperture!

P.S. One more suggestion is a more expensive lens like a Canon 18-55mm 2.8 IS, or the little less expensive Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 IS, if you want a bit of low light help. The thing I would do, though, I think I would simply buy either a 18-135mm IS or 18-200mm IS, depending on what I'd want to spend, and using that for all of my photography needs as well as well-lit videography needs, and if I just knew there was a special time that I needed an insane aperture like 1.4, I would simply rent or find a $100 vintage prime lens. Really, the truth is that as long as you do filmmaking the right way, you rarely will need anything more or less than something like a 18-135mm IS kit. And in those rare times you need something else, it's wisest to rent or save that "rare time" for prime work, as primes can be found vintage very cheap! The big investment needs to be the lens you'll use most often and with most ease!
 
Last edited:
Snapper123 said:
buy either a 18-135mm IS or 18-200mm IS,
Click to expand...

Those lenses are slow with variable aperture, have a lot of barrel distortion at 18mm, and not all that cheap either. If one came with the camera it would be fine but not as an upgrade.

Don't try to get everything in one variable aperture lens for video. You will be delighted day one then all down hill from there.

Upgrade to a constant aperture 2.8 in the standard wide zoom to start. The 2 best sharp choices in that range are.

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC
Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS

Depending on your budget but they are both constant aperture and very sharp.

Then add longer zoom later. Canon 70-200 f4 L will be the sharpest constant aperture lens for the money, and holds it's value if the day comes when you want to upgrade to a 70-200 f2.8L.

If you want a cheap long lens to start learning about what you need and want, the Canon 55-250, although variable aperture, is quite sharp for $220 and has IS.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Michael Rockmore.

Snapper, the problems you are talking about in wide shots can be reduced with the shallow DOF of faster aperture lenses. I can shoot wide shots with little or no problem at 2.8, 2 or 1.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top