An All Round Noob Requires An All Round Lens

Azrael

Azrael

Suspended / Banned
Messages
42
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
No
As an amateur I am having incredible difficulty picking a new lens.

Presently my setup is simply my 450D with the stock 18-55 kit lens & a little nifty fifty. This has catered to most of my demands whilst I've been shooting a bit of everything and anything. I never expected much from this lens but I'll happily admit i under estimated it's usefulness. My only frustrations which were expected was difficulty shooting in low light & a limited zoon range. I would like a new lens that improves upon these points.

So in a nutshell:
-I need a zoom lens which improves my range with Image Stabilization (or the sigma/tamron equivalent)
-I would like f2.8 so I can shoot in poor lighting conditions and a lens that can stop action quickly when shooting sports.

The closest thing I can see to meeting my needs is:
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM Lens (and how I wish this had IS )

Budget is whatever it has to be -I'm indulging!
And, 'you can't put a price on happiness!' :lol:

I would really appreciate some help & suggestions with this guys.
 
Last edited:
How about the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This is a real belter of a lens, with great IQ and fantastic colours. You will hear some say about it letting in dust, well it does a little I suppose. I had my 17-55 for about 12 months, it was on my camera most of the time and had 2 specks of dust in it, neither of which affected IQ in anyway at all.

In fact, you may buy this lens and find it makes your nifty fifty redundant - It certainly did mine as that lens was so very sharp. You can pick them up s/h on here for about the £600 mark. Well worth it.

On a budget and there is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. The one without the IS is considered the better of the two.
 
the 24-70 is not really going to give you that much more than the stock lens, alot more light but not the reach , the 70-200 2.8 is a very good lens
 
Agreed - 17-55, end of thread tbh :)

The only issue is that it doesn't extend the range of your current lens. If that's a priority then the alternatives are the Canon 15-85, but you'll sacrifice aperture, or the Canon 24-70, where you'll sacrifice the wide end.
 
Last edited:
You won't find a better lens than the 24-70mm, don't get so hung up on IS especially on a wide angle, if you buy the 24-70mm and decide to upgrade the body at a later date you'll be keeping the lens.
 
swag72 said:
How about the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This is a real belter of a lens, with great IQ and fantastic colours. You will hear some say about it letting in dust, well it does a little I suppose. I had my 17-55 for about 12 months, it was on my camera most of the time and had 2 specks of dust in it, neither of which affected IQ in anyway at all.

In fact, you may buy this lens and find it makes your nifty fifty redundant - It certainly did mine as that lens was so very sharp. You can pick them up s/h on here for about the £600 mark. Well worth it.

On a budget and there is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. The one without the IS is considered the better of the two.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that swag, I'm looking to extend my range a bit further than these would provide. However the 17-55 sounds like it'd be of great interest to collegue who is struggling to cope with the limits of his kit lens.

janbokev said:
the 24-70 is not really going to give you that much more than the stock lens, alot more light but not the reach , the 70-200 2.8 is a very good lens
Click to expand...

Thanks Jan, having slightly more reach with alot more light does tick the boxes for me... the 70-200 is a lens that I would really like that I am fully clued up on however I am concerned that it might prove difficult to use a walk about lens eg -shooting candids in the highstreet.

Vertigo1 said:
Agreed - 17-55, end of thread tbh :)

The only issue is that it doesn't extend the range of your current lens. If that's a priority then the alternatives are the Canon 15-85, but you'll sacrifice aperture, or the Canon 24-70, where you'll sacrifice the wide end.
Click to expand...

Thanks Vertigo, I'd happily sacrifice the wide end but the aperture is quite important to me. Got a few family weddings coming up and we always have 'hilariously eventful' receptions so I'd love to capture some [proof] of those moments that only exist in our memories now.

wack61 said:
You won't find a better lens than the 24-70mm, don't get so hung up on IS especially on a wide angle, if you buy the 24-70mm and decide to upgrade the body at a later date you'll be keeping the lens.
Click to expand...

Thanks wack61, if I'm honest the IS is more for my partner. She takes great shots her hands are far from steady. I might just buy her a compact ;)

----

Thanks for the replies so far, I'd really appreciate some more -I'm leaning to the 24-70 so far...
 
It looks very much like you have the old "pick two of three" situation, namely with range, aperture & IS.

Range & aperture: 24-70
Range & IS: 15-85
Aperture & IS: 17-55

Just a case of picking which two are most important to you really :)
 
17-55 2.8. Nothing can touch it for all round usefulness and image quality.

Have you checked the Exif data on your current pictures to see which ones were shot at less than 24mm?

If it gets dusty, as pretty much all extending zooms do one way or another, it's an easy DIY cleaning job (google a tutorial).
 
Kind of all been said but on a 450D

24-70.....Great lens but be prepared to get frustrated with the lack of width on a crop body esp if you shoot landscapes. Just my opinion but I'd rule this out for the cost against the benefit on a crop.

15-85.....Fantastic handy focal range from landscapes to walkabout but not as fast as......

17-55 2.8......which would be just perfect.

Another plus point of the 17-55 2.8 - you may find that for 90% of the shots you used your nifty fifty for - this would do the job.
 
All hung up on canon here.... Tamron has the answer at a pocket friendly price.

They do both the 17-50 F2.8 and 28-75 F2.8
They do a VC version but the non VC version is sharper and at that aperture you just don't really need it, I shoot indoors in poor light all the time and the 17-50 is fine in those conditions.

You can usually pick up the 17-50 for £299 and the 28-75 for £399

If you cant put a price on happiness do yourself a favour and grab an 85 F1.8 as well for the long end, great little lens, especially given its price.

I have the nifty, the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 and the 85 F1.8 and see no need to upgrade bar maybe replacing the nifty with a F1.4 later on.
 
Last edited:
Dont forget Tokina, very sharp glass for your money even the budget class glass
 
swag72 said:
How about the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. This is a real belter of a lens, with great IQ and fantastic colours. You will hear some say about it letting in dust, well it does a little I suppose. I had my 17-55 for about 12 months, it was on my camera most of the time and had 2 specks of dust in it, neither of which affected IQ in anyway at all.

In fact, you may buy this lens and find it makes your nifty fifty redundant - It certainly did mine as that lens was so very sharp. You can pick them up s/h on here for about the £600 mark. Well worth it.

On a budget and there is the Tamron 17-50/2.8. The one without the IS is considered the better of the two.
Click to expand...

Talking about the Tamron 17-50, there is a write up on this lens in a current mag. Examiner (I use this term loosely) places it next to bottom. Now a site that checks many lens gives it the thumbs up. Checking mine on a test chart I think it`s a cracker. Once again it`s a question of you pays your money and you takes a chance.
 
Nobody seems to have mentioned the Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS lens. A lens I'm thinking of getting for my 450d for the same reason Azrael is.
 
Check out the new Sigma 17-50mm f2.8. It is a match for the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 and comes with a lens hood and padded case. It's about £200 cheaper all in too:D
 
Steve W said:
Nobody seems to have mentioned the Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS lens. A lens I'm thinking of getting for my 450d for the same reason Azrael is.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention it because the OP stated that he wanted f/2.8 and judging that he felt that the closest thing to his requirements was the 24-70/2.8 I naturally assumed that he is placed fast glass over the IS requirement.

Alternatively get the 17-55/2.8 IS and get both :D

Personally, I also don't feel that 24mm at the widest end is very good on a crop sensor. I know that I would have struggled in many situations if 24mm had been the widest I had on a walkabout lens.
 
Last edited:
iancandler said:
All hung up on canon here.... Tamron has the answer at a pocket friendly price.

They do both the 17-50 F2.8 and 28-75 F2.8
They do a VC version but the non VC version is sharper and at that aperture you just don't really need it, I shoot indoors in poor light all the time and the 17-50 is fine in those conditions.

You can usually pick up the 17-50 for £299 and the 28-75 for £399
Click to expand...

Didn't bother mentioning those alternatives as the OP said the price wasn't a problem as he was "indulging". Good as the two Tamrons are, if money isn't an issue then the Canon 17-55 and 24-70 are better IMO.

Personally, I think the best combination on a crop is the Canon 17-55 and 10-22, but then I would say that :D
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think the best combination on a crop is the Canon 17-55 and 10-22
Click to expand...

Totally agree, two very fine lenses and would be great if you could buy a similar quality EF-S lens similar to the variable aperture 55-250 (although its excellent for the money)
 
I've a 24-70 on a crop body and it's a belter of a lens and you get used to the weight of it in no time at all. I do occasionally wish it were wider when space is an issue but plan on getting a 10-22 to sort that out.

I've never thought that it needed IS though.

If you're shooting candids on the street then a 70-200 may be of use, the extra reach providing distance between you and the subject so they don't spot you till after the pic's been taken.
 
Has the OP mentioned which sports he'll be using a 24-70 lens for? It's a little close.

The other point with the 24-70 f2.8 lens on a 450D is it's a huge, heavy lens (almost 1kg) on a little body. Try it and make sure you're happy with the feel.

As for a 2.8 lens outdoing a nifty fifty? Sometimes you just need that extra couple of stops, especially with a 450D and low light/ISO performance. You just use your feet to zoom :D
 
swag72 said:
I didn't mention it because the OP stated that he wanted f/2.8 and judging that he felt that the closest thing to his requirements was the 24-70/2.8 I naturally assumed that he is placed fast glass over the IS requirement.
Click to expand...

Very true :| I must read the OP, I must read the OP, I must read the OP :bang:
 
I've had two Sigmas myself (17-70 & 24-60). Frankly I won't be bothering again due to their appalling quality control. At their best, they're very good lenses but the problem is it's a complete lottery as to whether you get a good one or not. The 17-70 was bought new and had to be sent off for calibration immediately, whereas the 24-60 was just plain soft at f/2.8.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top