Kit Lens Upgrade. HELP!!!

[carloss04]

I recently purchased by first SLR, a Canon XSi. I'm doing research for a kit lens upgrade. But first I want to learn the camera and the lens to be able to distinguish between a bad, o.k., good and great lens. The one's I'm considering are the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM, Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM, Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 Di II LD Aspherical IF Lens. Which would be a great walk around lens upgrade over the kit? I've noticed in reviews and forums that Canon "L" lenses are "reputable" and great and the pictures I seen are amazing. I know for sure most of my pics will be still pictures but would the Canon 17-40mm be too slow for fast action/sports photos? Even the other Canon lenses, would they be too slow? Any other lens suggestions will be considered and advice appreciated.

[djwixx]

I'm not a Canon user (Nikon), but I'm very keen on the Tamron 17-50 because of the wide end (wide enough for me) and F2.8 across the range makes it very usable in most light conditions. If I had a choice I'd stick with anything at F2.8 or F4 as a constant across the zoom range.

What lens are you upgrading from and what are you expecting a new lens to give you over and above what you already have?

With regards to sports, what sports do you mean and will you be on the side line? I'm not convinced any of the lenses will get you close enough to the action, but that will depend on how much of the action you're trying to capture.

Depending on what you already have you may do better to stick with it until you know exactly what you want.

[adz929]

You won't be using a 17-40 for sports, besides, there are plenty of people who use much slower 70-300 zooms for sports and do a pretty good job at it. Exactly what do you find lacking in the kit lens? Insuffient range? Poor IQ? What do you photograph primarily? In order to answer your question(s), we need a better understanding of your needs.

[carloss04]

I'm not a Canon user (Nikon), but I'm very keen on the Tamron 17-50 because of the wide end (wide enough for me) and F2.8 across the range makes it very usable in most light conditions. If I had a choice I'd stick with anything at F2.8 or F4 as a constant across the zoom range.

What lens are you upgrading from and what are you expecting a new lens to give you over and above what you already have?

"I'll be upgrading from the kit lens and not I'm not going to be at any side line. I meant if the mentioned lenses would be too slow for moving subjects, children, bikes, motorcycles, cars. Most of my pictures will be still pictures. Thanks for the response."

With regards to sports, what sports do you mean and will you be on the side line? I'm not convinced any of the lenses will get you close enough to the action, but that will depend on how much of the action you're trying to capture.

Depending on what you already have you may do better to stick with it until you know exactly what you want.

[carloss04]

You won't be using a 17-40 for sports, besides, there are plenty of people who use much slower 70-300 zooms for sports and do a pretty good job at it. Exactly what do you find lacking in the kit lens? Insuffient range? Poor IQ? What do you photograph primarily? In order to answer your question(s), we need a better understanding of your needs.

"I will primarily be photographing people the most. When I mention sports/action photos I mean of moving subjects not necessarily at a sports event. I would like more range over the kit lens and something with superior picture quality and sharpness. I like the kit lens but Im a rookie with a SLR, I only had it for two weeks but I want to do a well done research before buying my next lens. Thanks for the response."

[djwixx]

With regards to sports any of the lenses will be quick enough, but that will be dependant on the light and the speed of the sport and the shutter speed you are able to achieve relative to acceptable ISO. On a bright day with the light in the wrong direction F2.8 will let in too much light, so any of the lenses will do what you want within reason. As already pointed out, the focal lengths will be the issue.

If sharpness is the issue, then technically the logic is to stick with a lens with a sharpness ratio of 4 or lower, i.e. the longest focal length divided by the shortest focal length. A prime lens would have a sharpness ratio of 1 and would be deemed the sharpest.

[adz929]

"I will primarily be photographing people the most. When I mention sports/action photos I mean of moving subjects not necessarily at a sports event. I would like more range over the kit lens and something with superior picture quality and sharpness. I like the kit lens but Im a rookie with a SLR, I only had it for two weeks but I want to do a well done research before buying my next lens. Thanks for the response."

Hmmm, then my next question is, how much do you want to spend? Pop in to your local camera shop and take a look at either the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS or the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS. IMO, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 USM IS isn't all that much of an upgrade over the 18-55 you already have.