I am looking at this one

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...p;modelid=11924

I have always wanted an IS lens. Also I want a lens that produces razor sharp pictures. I do not like soft pictures at all.

Image stabilization si a expensive way to get sharp images

try using a lower ISO
a smaller F/stop so a 11

this will make sharper images also you might want to look at a 50mm lens.

I have a 50mm which is good, but autofocus could be faster. Also I get tired of having to step 50ft back in order to capture a building or landscape. Plus, I am getting blurry shots with it that I would like to eliminate.

go to a camera store and get the sensor cleand also try doing a firmwar update

you should not get blur shots from any lens

Why don't you post some example images of your blurry shots that you're getting? Be sure to include the exif data.

The 24-105L is pretty sharp, but not very "wide" on crop camera like yours. If I wanted to capture landscape or buildings, I'd want 17mm at least. (The 50mm is a portrait lens.) Look into:

Tamron 17-50
Sigma 10-20
Canon 10-22

the 24-105 is an awesome lens, however for a rebel I'd recommend the 17-55. Great wide angle and tack sharp.

nooo the blurry shots are on low light shots. It's why I was interested in a IS lens


I just want something really nice because I just want to use 1 lens.

What lens do you have now? I'd get the 17-55 over the 24-105. [on an xsi]

I have the 50mm f1.8

get the 17-55 f2.8 Is for ur xsi. as fine of a lens and useful at the same time on a xsi. to ironsight, shooting at f11 yes does give u a nice sharp image cuz most len's best performance is around f8-f11 but u are sacrificing dof as well as shutter speed by doing so. shooting low iso at f11 on a cloudy day will give u motion blur as supposed to gettin soft pics at shooting max aperture on a sunny day.



u'll get blur from lens that are too slow in 2 ways.. 1 slow af, u'll fail to track the object u wanna track, 2 small aperture, u'll have low shutter speeds in less than ideal lighting.

Thanks mate I think I will get this one (17-55 f2.8 IS)

Good choice guys?

Think its image quality will be better than my 55 f1.8?

Your 50mm stopped down to 2.8 will be sharper than the 17-55 at 2.8. The 50 is a prime--sharpness (and speed) is the reason you buy primes.

yup, the 50 1.8 @ 2.8 will be marginally sharper than 17-55 f2.8 IS but u don't have the mobility of a 17-55 f2.8 IS. on a crop body, 50mm is still too long for indoor low light. i would pick a 35 f2 or a sigma 30 1.4 instead. if u don't have a top standard zoom, i would recommand u get one.

ok, so now I am thinking about getting a uv filter because people say the 17-55 2.8 IS has dust issues. Will the filter hurt image quality? Also if I am using the filter for protection, does that mean I no longer have to put a lens cap on?

Get a decent multi coated filter, and you shouldn't notice IQ problems. (Hoya Pro1 is pretty cheap)

Always use a lens cap.