Help with replacement for kit lens

[hopemax]

In 2013, I bought a Canon T3i before our 1st trip to Hawaii. It came with the standard 18-55, and 55-250 lenses. After 2 trips to Hawaii, a trip to London, and an ungodly amount of Disney / Universal trips the 18-55 lens acts like the motor is wearing out. There are times it works great, and then times it won't auto focus. The rotate click trip worked for awhile, but I think it's just time for something new.

I hoped having this camera would turn me into a photography guru, and while I am generally satisfied with my photos, can shoot in the various manual modes, and composition is much improved.. when it comes to lens specs, I still feel like it might as well be a foreign language.

For awhile, I've had two lenses on my Amazon wish list and I'm wondering which one people prefer, if there is another lens that is newer than these that is not on my radar (similar price range, I can't do a $1000 lens), or if this is a "no wrong choice" scenario.

I also own the Nifty Fifty. We are going to Hong Kong in May, and likely Tokyo in Nov/December.

While shooting with the kit lens, there have been several times where I wanted "just a little more zoom" (usually shows at Disney where I wanted to zoom in on a single performer ) but didn't really want to swap it out for the 55-250 because then I lost the wide shots. But there are, as everyone knows, a lot of low light situations at Disney where the 2.8 would certainly be nice. I've seen comments about issues with dust and the 2.8 lens, also weather resistance (HK will likely be wet and humid and FL certainly is).

Thanks for your help!

 

[mom2rtk]

My favorite lens ever is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. Sharp, fast, excellent IS enabling me to shoot at crazy slow shutter speeds successfully. Can't recommend it highly enough.

I did have issues with dust in mine. I ended up paying to have it cleaned internally by Canon. I have kept a U/V filter on it since and haven't had the problem return.

 

[SkaGoat]

Not sure spending on a weather sealed lens makes much sense since your body isn't weather sealed.
If the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 is over your budget, both Sigma and Tamron make great, sharp 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses.

If you want a little more reach Sigma makes a 17-70mm f/2.8 - 4 for about $500.

 

[KVH]

What are your priorities? Price, aperture, reach, what? Face it, regardless of anything else, the openness of the 2.8 isn't something that can be duplicated - see circle of confusion for more info. It's not about IS and handholding as much as distance to subject and background for isolating subjects. That's why you buy the faster lens. IS and technique can take care of the rest.

Can you live with a refurbished product directly from Canon? I can recommend the quality of those items. See this link.

I'd also recommend the 24-105/f4 L. That red ring is a kicker and will put all the other lenses mentioned here to shame. But a refurb is $800. There's a 17-40/f4 L too for ~600. At a level down is the 18-135 and 28-135 but much slower lenses.

As long as you can deal with the trade-offs, you actually have a lot of options.

 

[bob100]

I'll vote for a refurbished Canon 15-85
.
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[cobright]

Firsty first, see if that kit lens can be repaired. Last lens I had aamotor service was about $100. Worth a shot. I kind of hate the range on that 17-55, never zoomy enough and if you need wide angle there's better out there. But, it fills a niche. I like all in one lenses on principle but they tend to be pretty clunky for a vacation camera. Honestly , your nifty fifty should do well for your low light needs, that 18-85mm may be a good choice.

Lately I've been using a trio of primes and leaving the kit zooms at the hotel. I have a 22mm f2, 50mm1.8, and a Chinese knockoff 85mm f1.8 I got for $100. The two unused lenses are actually not that big a pain to keep in my bag. For Animal kingdom days I have a 55-250 mm that really likes a sunny day.

 

[mom2rtk]

Firsty first, see if that kit lens can be repaired. Last lens I had aamotor service was about $100. Worth a shot. I kind of hate the range on that 17-55, never zoomy enough and if you need wide angle there's better out there. But, it fills a niche. I like all in one lenses on principle but they tend to be pretty clunky for a vacation camera. Honestly , your nifty fifty should do well for your low light needs, that 18-85mm may be a good choice.

Lately I've been using a trio of primes and leaving the kit zooms at the hotel. I have a 22mm f2, 50mm1.8, and a Chinese knockoff 85mm f1.8 I got for $100. The two unused lenses are actually not that big a pain to keep in my bag. For Animal kingdom days I have a 55-250 mm that really likes a sunny day.

While I agree that more range is always nice, for me image quality always won out. That's why a sharper faster version of the kit lens worked great for me. When I was using that 17-55 (only gave it up to go full frame) about 95% of my shots in the parks were with it.

 

[cobright]

While I agree that more range is always nice, for me image quality always won out. That's why a sharper faster version of the kit lens worked great for me. When I was using that 17-55 (only gave it up to go full frame) about 95% of my shots in the parks were with it.

I can see the wisdom. At the same time... if my 17-55 died and I was gonna spend $800 on a lens, something with a little more swing might be pretty attractive. When I shot Nikon I had an 18-270mm that I just adored. For all its faults there wasn't much I couldn't correct for in lightroom. Then again... it's taken me a long time but I'm this || close to shaking zoom lenses altogether. When all we had were 8 or 10 megapixels to work with you needed it, but with a 24mp sensor I can shoot 90% of my shots with my 40mm pancake and crop the same 10 megapixel composition when I get home. Only sharper, with less distortion to fix, razor thin depth of field if I want it, and all from a much cheaper lens.

Just rambling at this point. Thinking out loud. Some version of this plays out every time I go to spend money on a lens... It never gets easier.

 

[mom2rtk]

I can see the wisdom. At the same time... if my 17-55 died and I was gonna spend $800 on a lens, something with a little more swing might be pretty attractive. When I shot Nikon I had an 18-270mm that I just adored. For all its faults there wasn't much I couldn't correct for in lightroom. Then again... it's taken me a long time but I'm this || close to shaking zoom lenses altogether. When all we had were 8 or 10 megapixels to work with you needed it, but with a 24mp sensor I can shoot 90% of my shots with my 40mm pancake and crop the same 10 megapixel composition when I get home. Only sharper, with less distortion to fix, razor thin depth of field if I want it, and all from a much cheaper lens.

Just rambling at this point. Thinking out loud. Some version of this plays out every time I go to spend money on a lens... It never gets easier.

A lot of it is personal preference and opinion.

At the time I owned that Canon 17-55 f/2.8 I also owned the Tamron 18-270 and it sat in my bag while I used the Canon. The IQ was that much different. And it wasn't something that could be corrected for in Lightroom.

 

[jwolfpack]

The 17-55 2.8 was my favorite when I had a cropped sensor camera. Like a poster above, I only got rid of it after I moved to full frame. I never had an issue with dust or humidity, and mine went with me to Hawaii twice, to Disney several times, and survived my every day life on the humid Gulf Coast. For me, low aperture ALWAYS wins.

Don't forget about your nifty fifty for travel photography. Some of my favorite vacation pictures ever have been taken with that lens (though I do have the 1.4 version now). I find that my composition is more creative with the limited zoom, and sometimes its nice to get a break from carrying around the longer, heavier lenses.