I know there have been tonnes of discussions about lens advice, so forgive me for starting another one (especially as I'm not really posting here any more!)
I've got a 7D and a 400D (and have no plans to go to full frame) and the following lenses:
EF-S 10-22mm
EF 28mm
EF 70-300mm
Sigma 105mm Macro
Sigma 18-200mm (which I hate because it's rubbish).
I'm more than happy to cart the lot around with me when I go out taking photos, but I'm also looking for a lens that I can take out on its own. Obviously the 18-135 has a greater range, but I've compromised on lens quality before for more range and been disappointed. The lack of zoom on the 24-105 doesn't really bother me because I can 'crop-zoom' in pshop later if I really want to. The lack of wide angle sort of concerns me because I do take a lot of landscape shots, but I can stitch photos together to create panoramas. And if I'm going out to specifically take landscapes then I'll take the 10-22 anyway. I really am leaning towards the 24-105 - but am I being swayed by the fact that it's a 'L' and is it worth the extra money? (it's double the price of the other one).
I've read the reviews and STILL can't decide between the two lenses, so I'm looking for people on here to say 'yes, I've got that one it's great', or 'no, don't get it you'll be better off with such and such'. So I am open to suggestions of other lenses, but don't want to spend much more than £700-800. (I can get the L lens for £650).
Can't comment on the two you're looking at, but the Canon EF-S 15-85mm is a good walkabout lens on a 7D. I have an EF 75-300mm and find the combination of the two covers most things a photo walk can throw at you. It's also just a nice lens to use - quick and quiet. I found the 17-85mm not wide enough for a general lens when I tried it, so I think personally I'd find the 24-105mm too narrow for a walkabout lens.
Now if I intended to go full frame, I'd get the 24-105 in a heartbeat.
I've decided to buy the 17-55 f/2.8 lens to replace my kit lens on the 500D. I would have prefered a longer zoom, but the f/2.8 has swayed me, as well as very good reports on the lens quality. Apparently the only reason it isn't an "L" lens is because it is an EF-S lens.
Personally, I steered away from the 18-135 as I felt it would be a compromise too far. I did like the idea of having my main lens extend that far in focal length though.
If interested, the 17-55 f/2.8 retails on Amazon for about £750, though I'm sure you would be able to find it cheaper elsewhere.
Helen, the EF24-105 is a good lens. But, given that you're not full frame then I agree with HH. The 18-85 lens is highly rated and often said to be the best Canon walkabout lens for the APS-C cameras.
I have the 10-22 also as my main landscape lens and love it. I also have the 28-135 that I use as my walk around and love this lens. It's sharp as a tack and still gives a descent amount of coverage. I too had been debating the 24-105 but hard to justify spending the money when the 28-135 performs so well. Good Luck in your decision.
You never know when you will eventually go full-frame. Never say never! A good lens is well worth investing in and I would go L every time. I have the 24-105mm and it is a brilliant piece of glass. I use it a lot when walking around with no particular itinerary or plans and on trips. It fits in nicely with your existing kit too.
I have the 24-105 too and think it is a great walk-around lens but I am shooting full frame. On an APS-C you might find the lower end a bit limiting on landscapes. The 24-105 is a really nice piece of glass though. For me it is worth the extra dollars.
I would seriously look at the new Sigma 18/250. I see you didn't have good experiences with the 18/200. Sorry about that. Many Sigma advocates would say this was not one of sigma's shining momements.
The 18/250 is Optically Stabilized for about a 4 stop hand held safety net. It comes in at just 16 ounces. It is tack sharp in the mid ranges, and even at 18 and 250 does darn well. I find 18/85 is just not enough reach to be my one-and-only walkaround.
And at US$450 with current discounts, it is a steal.
I really like the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM as a versatile all-around lens. In fact, it's the lens on my camera at the moment. Here's a shot I took with it yesterday:
I've recently been shooting with the 24-105 and I love it! it's very versatile and the quality is great. don't think you can go wrong with this lens, especially since it would fit nicely into your collection. It's great for portraits or macro or whatever really.
Bear in mind that the 24-105 is an EF lens and therefore set up for full frame cameras, and so the crop conversion will make it more like a 35-135 lens for you, so if you want some wide angle shots you will be a bit restricted. I use L lenses all the time, but I shoot weddings, so I have to, for you I don't really see the point in spending the extra money where you don't need to! My uncle uses the 18-135 and is more than happy with it!
I would again say that while the 24-105 is unquestionably a great lens, it's not a great length for use on a crop-frame body -- you will find you are swapping between that and your 10-22 a *lot*.
As others have done, I would strongly recommend either the 15-85mm or 17-55mm f/2.8, they are both very optically strong lenses, the 15-85mm being about as good optically as the 24-105 and the 17-55mm being better, and both will hold value well should you move to full-frame and need to sell them.
My final word of advice would be, buy the lens for the camera you have now, not the camera you may or may not have in a year or three.
Agree with everything said so far. I have the 15-85 with my 7d and it's a superb lens, very sharp. I've never been left wanting in that regard. The only negative in my opinion being its small aperture at the tele end. Super flexibility, especially on a crop sensor. However If you are buying a walk-around I'm not convinced the 24-105 is that flexible on a crop, irrespective of optical quality.
The 17-55 f2.8 Is my most used lens. Most of the time it is the only lens I have with me. Unless I know I will need something longer or wider I try to limited it to carrying one lens.
I use the 24-105 99% of the time on my crop frame 50d. As has been said it's a great lens and the lack of width has forced me to think a lot about framing and composition (not always successfully! ) but as you have the 10-22 that shouldn't be a problem for you and I don't suppose you'd be carrying all those lenses if you weren't prepared to be swapping them about. Good luck, it's a nice dilemma to have :)
Every 24-105 lens I have ever used (I've used a lot) has been soft. Compared to the 24-70 and 70-200 lenses they're just terrible. Avoid them.
Yes, it is a great focal range and rather versatile, but if you like your images sharp, well, stay away. When they do a new version and get it right, it will be a remarkable lens. Just my 2 cents.
@jinximages I have to disagree, I have both the 24-70 and the 70-200 and think they are amazing lenses, I spent a lot of money on them and dont regret a penny. I use them at weddings all the time and they have never let me down!
@vokesy I believe Jinx is saying the 24-70 and 70-200 are good; that the 24-105 is not as good in comparison. I completely agree. I have the 24-105 that I use on both a full frame camera and a cropped sensor. It's not sharp enough, especially considering the money you drop on it. I'm kicking myself for not buying the 24-70.
That being said, if that's your budget, it will be a decent lens. If you can afford more, go for it.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Now if I intended to go full frame, I'd get the 24-105 in a heartbeat.
Personally, I steered away from the 18-135 as I felt it would be a compromise too far. I did like the idea of having my main lens extend that far in focal length though.
If interested, the 17-55 f/2.8 retails on Amazon for about £750, though I'm sure you would be able to find it cheaper elsewhere.
The 18/250 is Optically Stabilized for about a 4 stop hand held safety net. It comes in at just 16 ounces. It is tack sharp in the mid ranges, and even at 18 and 250 does darn well. I find 18/85 is just not enough reach to be my one-and-only walkaround.
And at US$450 with current discounts, it is a steal.
As others have done, I would strongly recommend either the 15-85mm or 17-55mm f/2.8, they are both very optically strong lenses, the 15-85mm being about as good optically as the 24-105 and the 17-55mm being better, and both will hold value well should you move to full-frame and need to sell them.
My final word of advice would be, buy the lens for the camera you have now, not the camera you may or may not have in a year or three.
Yes, it is a great focal range and rather versatile, but if you like your images sharp, well, stay away. When they do a new version and get it right, it will be a remarkable lens. Just my 2 cents.
That being said, if that's your budget, it will be a decent lens. If you can afford more, go for it.