Crop body Canon lens dilemma

The 18-55 kit lens that came with my 550D got old in 2 days. Ugh.

So I've been looking for some better glass to use as a do-it-all everyday lens. I have a budget of $1000. I'll be doing indoor events including sports as well as outdoor nature shots and vacation photos. For that purpose I have a couple candidates.

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM
EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (plus a 85mm f/1.8)
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

They all have top-notch image quality. The differences between them are so mild that I'm really not concerned about IQ in this dilemma anymore.

The first two choices are obviously the cheaper ones, with the 15-85mm being ~$200 cheaper than the 17-55mm. I really like the fast aperture of the 17-55mm, but I feel like I will be limited by the comparatively small zoom range which isn't much of an improvement from the 18-55mm. Also, the 15-85mm has a 4-stop IS while the 17-55mm is the older 3-stop version. I'm also worried that the 17-55mm will have seal problems that many people are having. But the huge disadvantage for the 15-85mm is the variable slow aperture which hinders its lowlight performance.

Then the prime lens combo comes to play. Being faster than any zoom lens, the 85mm prime should add some lowlight capabilities to the setup, but I feel like I might be hindered by the lack of IS and/or zoom with the prime, and switching lenses might be too much of a hassle for fast-paced events like sports.

Then I considered some better lenses that perhaps are a bit out of my range. The most obvious choice was the venerable 24-70mm. Fast aperture with the perfect focal length! But the problem is that I might miss some of the wide angles, it weighs more than the camera, and it lacks IS. Plus, it's $1200 used (but an excellent investment!).

Or I could go with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. Albeit slower than the 17-55mm and the 24-70mm, it's still faster than the 15-85mm at most focal lengths, has a greater reach on a crop body, etc. but again, I might miss the wide angles and it weighs a lot. It's also on the upper end of the cost spectrum. I also feel like the f/4 might not be enough for indoor sports photography.

In the event that I someday end up getting a full-frame camera, I guess the EF lenses would be a more worthy investment, but I'm really not concerned about that right now.


I have really put thought into this dilemma but I still can't decide on which setup to go with! Could someone please give me advice on which lens to go for? Thanks!

Phrasikleia said:

You really can't go wrong with any of these lenses; they're all great. I'll be surprised if the 15-85 really has a full stop advantage with its IS because the IS on the 17-55 works so beautifully, but regardless, how often do you shoot subjects that don't move? IS won't help you much with moving subjects, of course.

I personally prefer to avoid lenses with variable apertures, but if you like to shoot in semi-auto modes, then it probably will make very little difference to you. In Av or Tv, the camera will compensate automatically for the aperture change necessitated by the focal length you choose. If you shoot mostly in M mode, then it could get a little annoying. So I suppose that decision all depends on your shooting style.

As for the focal length differences, I think you will miss the wide end if you go with a lens that starts at 24mm. Sure, those lenses will transfer over to a full-frame camera, but the EF-S lenses that you are considering will hold their value very well--it's a piece of cake to sell those lenses and then move on to whatever you really need when the time comes to move up to full-frame.

Click to expand...

90% of the time it stays on full manual. I agree that the constant aperture is quite desirable! Shooting in f/4 at 30mm then suddenly shifting to f/4.5 is quite annoying.
I'm leaning towards the 24-105mm f/4L. How's the lowlight performance on it? Will the f/2.8 of the 24-70 compensate for its lack of IS?

Thanks for the replies!
I have decided on the 17-55mm f/2.8 due to the focal length (although I would like a bigger tele range) and the f/2.8 + IS which the 24-70mm f/2.8L does not deliver (yet).