Better quality zoom lens

Reagan

I have the 60D with the 18-135mm lens that came with it. I recently purchased a Canon 50mm f/1.4 and a Sigma 30mm f/1.4. The pictures from the prime lenses are so crisp, clear and sharp.

I am wondering which telephoto lens is available that will give me a good range of zoom and take pictures better than the 18-135? I'm not unhappy with the zoom range...I have taken some great shots. However, I would like to 'upgrade' my current lens and capture shots that come out closer to the quality of the prime lenses I've purchased.

I seem to use the zoom more for wider angles than zooming in for close ups. So I'd lean more towards a lower mm rather than a higher mm.

My interest in this will be for an upcoming trip to Ireland, Isle of Man, English countryside, etc... and I want to capture the intense colors of spring both here in the US and on my trip. Also, I'd like to stay with the L series, so if I upgrade the body down the road to a full frame I won't have too many lenses that don't migrate. My Sigma will not work if I step up, but that's the only one so far.

One another question...What's the difference between my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and my Canon 50mm f/1.4?

Moose

Howdy @Reagan - It sounds like you're looking for a super sharp wide-angle lens to capture wide sweeping landscapes. If money is no object, then the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L (see here) would be a fantastic option.

You get "L" quality glass, which produces razor sharp images and beautiful color tonality. Starting out at 16mm will give you the ability to go wider, compared to your 18-135mm lens. It's one of those lenses that landscape photographers just love.

If your budget isn't quite that high, take a look at the Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 (see here). This is a true "wide-angle" lens, allowing you to capture and incredibly wide field of view. It's not as sharp as the 16-35mm, but at respectable sizes you;d be hard pressed to notice a major difference.

As for the difference between your Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and the Canon 50mm f/1.4, they're pretty comparable in terms of image sharpness and overall performance...ultimately, the defining line is the field of view. The 30mm gives you a wider field of view compared to the 50mm. When shooting indoors or in tight spaces, the 30mm is much easier to compose a shot. However, when shooting outdoors, it's preferable to create some space between you and the subject. This is where the 50mm would have the advantage.

Hope that all makes sense and happy shooting! :)

Reagan

Awesome information...Budget is always a concern and it ultimately comes down to 'what do you get for the difference in price?'

I will look at both lenses, but I can tell you that I'm already thinking since I'm after sharpness I might lean towards the Canon 16-35mm and since it's an "L" lens I would be able to move up to the full frame body at a later date and still use that same lens. Thanks again for wonderful help.