I use a 60D and I have a 50mm that I used most of the time, but it has some limitations being a prime lens-I love it for portraits but not much else. I also have a 10-22mm that i LOVE playing with but it's not really good for general use. Then I have the 18-135 that came with the 60D and it works for general use but it is cheap and I feel like the cheapness shows in the pictures when I use it.
I'd really like to find a good, versatile lens that I can use as my "walk around" lens that doesn't feel "cheap". Recommendations? I'm probably not going out and buying it tomorrow but I want to have something to be building towards :)
And I know it's probably been discussed but it's hard to search when I'm mobile. Thanks!
oh, i am anxious to hear the responses you get. I have the same lenses, plus a macro. I'd really like to replace my 18-135 with something that is faster and has a fixed aperture......like you say, a good walk around all purpose lens.
I own a Sony Alpha 65 and have no experience with Canon. My favorite lens for general use is the well known and very good Sony 16-50mm with f2.8. I would recommend something similar. What about the similar (but not that good as the Sony pendant) Tamron 17-50mm f2.8? Or maybe Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM.
While I do love me some nifty-fifty, a good walk-around I have is the EF 24-105 1:4 L IS USM because it gives me a wide range of versatility, zooms and focuses quickly.
I recently saved up and purchased the Canon 17-40mm f4 L USM - it's relatively inexpensive for an L series lens but you can see and feel the L series quality. On a cropped sensor like the 60D it gives you an effective focal length of 27 - 65mm (ish) so it's a good walkabout lens. I love it and it stays on my camera most of the time. It might be worth hiring a few different lenses to see what works for you?
I shoot with the same camera, I have the nifty fifty that is on my camera most of the time for "close" work. When I'm out and about & expect to need a telephoto I currently use a Tamron 70-300, which works well but after renting a Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II I want to make a replacement. The images are decent with the Tamron but they can't compare to the L series glass. If I had to do it again I'd hold out and save for the Canon L series glass. Whatever range you decide you need if you can wait to get the money for L series I don't think you'll regret it.
I also have a Canon 17-85 f/4.5-5.6 that I use for the landscape shots I've attempted. Until attempting those I hadn't used that lens in a while but I'm now putting it into use regularly.
The Sigma 18-250 general purpose zoom has a pretty good reputation in the press, much better than the Tamron 18-270 that I own (on a Nikon D5100) which continues to serve me fine for a single lens to cover just about every eventuality, with a healthy dose of Photoshop lens correction and sharpness at either end of the zoom.
The Sigma, like the Tamron, will cover all the bases except the very wide angle. On a cropped sensor Canon, that will get you a ffe of close to 400mm at full zoom. And it won't break the bank, or your arm when you carry it all day. I have no experience of the lens first hand, but it is consistently rated significantly higher than my Tamron in side-by-side testing.
I had almost stopped using my Canon DSLR because I was fed up with carrying a big camera and a bag full of lenses. I started using a "travel zoom" compact that I could carry with me at all times instead.
Then I bought a second hand Canon EF-S 18-200mm lens and now I'm using my DSLR again. The lens is a lot better than I thought it would be and very flexible. It works for me. And that's just the thing... we're all different and have different needs. Some here suggest fast L glass. Now those lenses are big and heavy. Not my idea of a "walk-around" lens, but it might be for you.
I guess the best way to find out is to borrow, rent or buy from a store with a generous return policy.
Oh, make sure you rent first before you buy anything. Rentglass.com is just one mail-order outfit with exceptionally fair prices if you don't have a "superstore" close to you. There are many others, so Google till you find one that suits you.
Take a look at the Canon 15-85. It's not 'L' but it's much nicer than the 17-85. If you want constant aperture and can forego the length, the 17-55 2.8 would at the top of my list.
@4umfreak I'm soooo tempted by the17-55 but it weighs a ton and I carry my camera everywhere... I've been going back and forth but the weight issue is pushing me towards the 15-85... Much as I wld love the f/2.8 :)
I have a 7D and have the canon18-200 lens, an excellent all rounder in my books. Great for close ups and also landscapes, very versatile - not a prime lens -in Aus cost about $1200,
well, it sounds a lot better in ounces than in grams ;p i've been using my macro lens a lot of late and it feels hugely heavy to me... and i'm pretty sure it's lighter than the 17-55... sigh... decisions decisions... and then there's the street factor for which 85mm focal length is nice to have (altho not quite as important as the wide angle... but still....)
I buy my lenses used and wanted a 24-70 f/2.8 so much I traded in my 24-105 f/4. No regrets, as I crop the missing distance to the 105 I used to have. But I agree with Aaron that it's a great lens if you want the wider range to begin with.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Have a look at this page: http://www.dpreview.com/products/lenses
Most of the photos in my albums are with that lens. And it is affordable.
I also have a Canon 17-85 f/4.5-5.6 that I use for the landscape shots I've attempted. Until attempting those I hadn't used that lens in a while but I'm now putting it into use regularly.
The Sigma, like the Tamron, will cover all the bases except the very wide angle. On a cropped sensor Canon, that will get you a ffe of close to 400mm at full zoom. And it won't break the bank, or your arm when you carry it all day. I have no experience of the lens first hand, but it is consistently rated significantly higher than my Tamron in side-by-side testing.
Then I bought a second hand Canon EF-S 18-200mm lens and now I'm using my DSLR again. The lens is a lot better than I thought it would be and very flexible. It works for me. And that's just the thing... we're all different and have different needs. Some here suggest fast L glass. Now those lenses are big and heavy. Not my idea of a "walk-around" lens, but it might be for you.
I guess the best way to find out is to borrow, rent or buy from a store with a generous return policy.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=675&LensComp=398&Units=E
The 17-85 is 3oz lighter than the 15-85. So the 17-55 will be 6oz more than what you're used to...