Best Canon 'walkabout' lens between £500-£600

Eddzz!!

Eddzz!!

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,120
Name
Eddy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all!

I have my 21st coming up and have been asked if I would like money putting towards a significant gift. What better than a nice new lens?! I have myself a Canon 60D and am looking to get my hands on a new walkabout lens. Currently I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non-VC and has been serving me well! However, its AF often hunts, the zoom ring is stiff and the grip is starting to peel. It's an old lens and has had two previous owners, but it has been doing it's job and is capable of some lovely (albeit slightly soft) images!

What lens would you all suggest as an adequate replacement? There are a few that I have considered, primarily the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8, the Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5 and the Canon 17-40 f/4L

When it comes to L glass, I have no problem shopping second hand as those things last forever! :D

I welcome all recommendations! Cheers.

Eddy
 
24-105mm L? Would probably be one of the better ones that falls within your budget, especially considering those other lenses that you have.
 
24 isn't wide enough for a general walkaround on a 60D. Get the Canon 17-55 f2.8.
 
If it was me, it would be the 17-55 f2.8 without question.
 
I have the 15-85 and am very happy with it, nice build quality, fast and accurate focus.
 
It depends. If you feel the Tamron is lacking in range and never use it beyond f4 ish, 15-85. If you want the same range and aperture 17-55. Both will be a step up in usability over your Tamron (the IS in the 15-85 is brilliant and almost makes up for it's slow aperture speeds).
 
17-55 F 2.8 will give you better overall sharpness but in my experience the tamron has better center sharpness... other than that the IS is a plus, its quieter and USM is handy but it depends what you're doing really!

But again, I second (third?) all the comments on the 15-85, a cracking lens if you don't need a fixed fast aperture.
 
adamdavi3s said:
17-55 F 2.8 will give you better overall sharpness but in my experience the tamron has better center sharpness... other than that the IS is a plus, its quieter and USM is handy but it depends what you're doing really!

But again, I second (third?) all the comments on the 15-85, a cracking lens if you don't need a fixed fast aperture.
Click to expand...
I have both of those lenses and they are indeed cracking lenses
 
What is a walkabout lens :shrug:


Best standard lens for an APS-C canon is the 17-55 f2.8, but it comes at a price. A 24-105 is not a bad choice I used to use one on my 40d. However, I did have a 10-22 as well but I never found the 24mm end not to be wide enough for the majority of shots.
 
POAH said:
What is a walkabout lens :shrug:
Click to expand...
- A general purpose lens that can spend most of its time on the body :-) Ya'know, your most convenient and all-round useful lens.


I have considered the 24-105mm, though just not sure how practical it would prove on a crop. 24mm effectively become 38.4mm on an APS-C sensor. Though the extra reach at the higher end is tempting.

What are the significant advantages of the Canon 17-55mm over the Tamron 17-50 (which I already have). When considering the price difference between the two, I don't want to be trading in for only a slight upgrade!
 
Last edited:
I've just ordered an 18-135 IS for the wife for her 550D, but I'm sure I'll get some use from it on my 60D. I've been using the 24-105 f4 L on my 60D and the reach is great for me as I don't do a lot of landscape stuff, and it's also great on my 5D3 as 24 is wide enough for me on FF. I have been thinking about a 17-40 f4 L but don't know if I'd use it enough, and I want to get a 35 f2, 50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8 first anyway.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Do you not find that the crop factor limits you at 24mm?
Click to expand...

Rather more to the point, do you?

Look at your back catalogue and see how many shots are taken between 17-24mm. Then evaluate whether or not you'd miss taking those photos.

There's your answer.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Do you not find that the crop factor limits you at 24mm?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but not felt the requirement to buy something wider for everyday use, that couldn't be achieved without a few steps backwards.

I will admit to just buying a 10-22 for the racing shot at La Source Hairpin at Spa-Francorchamp race track in Belgium, as 24mm wasn't quite wide enough.
 
It really does depend on what you want to use it for. Walk around is fine, but there's no single lens that will cover everything equally well.

I'd be tempted by the 17-55mm, for the f2.8 aperture, but the 15-85 is very well regarded and gives you more range, if you're comfortable with the f3.5 - 5.6. The IS will obviously help, but not if the subject is moving.The 24-105 f4 might work and extends the range at the long end but, as others have said, it's not very wide on a crop body. That might, or might not, be important to you. 24mm is wide enough for me most of the time, but I go wider often enough to prefer something starting at around 15mm or 17mm, and it's not always feasible to step back. You could easily check this for yourself by treating your Tamron as a 24mm - 50mm for a week and seeing how you get on.
 
DemiLion said:
Rather more to the point, do you?

Look at your back catalogue and see how many shots are taken between 17-24mm. Then evaluate whether or not you'd miss taking those photos.

There's your answer.
Click to expand...

A very good answer, on my 60D I found that I was rarely if ever taking pictures below 24mm, but then I don't really do landscapes, nor do I own a 10-20/22!
 
im in the same situation , i currently have the 18-135 on my 60d and find that its just not quite sharp enough - plus the macro is not great.. im tempted with the 17-70sigma for the 2.8 @ 17mm BUT i dont think its going to be noticeably different to my current lens - im very confused too...im even tempted with the 15-85 but worried about loosing the extra 'length'
 
Last edited:
Another flag in the 24-105 F/4 IS L camp here, a very capable and versatile general purpose lens.
 
IMO a good walk around lens is a 18-200 - something that delivers at most focal lengths required, performance obviously wont be anything like as good as 17-55 etc... but as a walkaround lens its untouchable IMO

I know if I was going on holiday I'd like to have 1 camera and 1 lens only... and that would be the choice (im shooting FF so it wont work on mine, but you get the idea)

Then add other quality lenses as you require them...

If you had asked "what is a good short - medium lens" I too would have mentioned the 17-55 IS.
If you had asked "what is a good telephoto lens" I would have recommended one of Canons 70-200 L's

But as a walkaround, general purpose lens, the 18-200 IMO
 
My vote goes for the 17-55. Its awesome on my 60D, albeit it is a heavy beast. The significant difference you'll notice over your Tamron is the speed of AF. For your budget, you'd probably have to go for a 2nd hand one.

You could also consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. They're within budget new I think. Over on POTN the Americans are raving about it something crazy. Some are even calling it better than the 17-55, as its cheaper, lighter, has a longer warranty and same image quality.

I went with the 17-55 as I picked up a nearly new one at a good price in the classifieds on here.
 
Morph3ous said:
My vote goes for the 17-55. Its awesome on my 60D, albeit it is a heavy beast. The significant difference you'll notice over your Tamron is the speed of AF. For your budget, you'd probably have to go for a 2nd hand one.

You could also consider the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS. They're within budget new I think. Over on POTN the Americans are raving about it something crazy. Some are even calling it better than the 17-55, as its cheaper, lighter, has a longer warranty and same image quality.

I went with the 17-55 as I picked up a nearly new one at a good price in the classifieds on here.
Click to expand...

Well I just took a look at your Flickr (hope you don't mind! :D) and the photos you've snapped with the 17-55 look fantastic! So I'm tempted... Just so darn expensive! At the moment it is a close call between the 17-55 and the 24-105!
 
futureal33 said:
But as a walkaround, general purpose lens, the 18-200 IMO
Click to expand...


I agree - if by 'walkabout' you mean general purpose 'one size fits all' then an 18-200mm can't be beaten. The other lenses mentioned, although superior quality, are too limited to be truly general purpose. I'd also give the 15-85mm some consideration.
 
Eddzz!! said:
Well I just took a look at your Flickr (hope you don't mind! :D) and the photos you've snapped with the 17-55 look fantastic! So I'm tempted... Just so darn expensive! At the moment it is a close call between the 17-55 and the 24-105!
Click to expand...

Of course I don't mind you looking, that's what it's for!

I think you should go for the 17-55, you won't be disappointed. Like others I think 24mm is a bit long on crop and the 2.8 is obviously better than f4. Even with IS.
Try setting your Tamron at 24mm and see how you get on, you might find its okay for what you shoot...
Keep your eye on the classifieds section, 17-55 and 24-105s come up fairly frequently.
 
Morph3ous said:
Of course I don't mind you looking, that's what it's for!

I think you should go for the 17-55, you won't be disappointed. Like others I think 24mm is a bit long on crop and the 2.8 is obviously better than f4. Even with IS.
Try setting your Tamron at 24mm and see how you get on, you might find its okay for what you shoot...
Keep your eye on the classifieds section, 17-55 and 24-105s come up fairly frequently.
Click to expand...

Cheers for the suggestion! I just gave that a go and didn't notice too much of a loss... Gahhh, decisions, decisions! :bonk:

The most widely recommended lens suggested to me here has been the 15-85mm and secondly the 17-55mm. Both lenses have received equally good reviews and do seem to produce fantastic results! However, in terms of investing for the future, are they my best choices considering their exclusive EF-S compatibility? I don't know if I'll ever go FF, but the option is still always there.

The L lenses however remove that issue, however if I want equal performance, I'm looking at paying a bomb! Both the 24-105mm f/4L and 17-40mm f/4L have great reviews and seem to produce razor sharp images. However, they're still not f/2.8 which is perhaps the biggest draw out of my whole selection of lenses.

Well, I just don't know what to do. I'm terrible at making decisions for myself!

... :help:
 
Currently most convinced by the 24-105L and the 17-55!
 
I found the 24-105 a bit limiting as well at the wide end, also I can't see any better performance on my 7D than I get with the 15-85.

The answer all depends on your type of shooting, I generally favour 100mm and less so the extra 2mm of the 15-85 proved more useful than 2.8 on the 17-55, if I want more light gathering I'd use a 30 or 50mm prime. If you shoot moving subjects in lower light more then the 17-55 would make more sense....
 
Oh man, I've just seen the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8! Drool :D
 
I use the 15-85mm.
 
I loved my 24-105 on a 500D and it very rarely came off the camera (even though I had a 10-20 for the wider stuff)

I still like the 24-105 on my 5D2 but find it spends less time on the camera, fighting with the 70-200 :D
 
OK, garnering opinion on lenses is good, but all these opinions are going to be based on the posters shooting style, not your own.

Look through your photos, see how many are shot in the 17-50mm range. Then look and see if you need the F2.8 aperture.

If you do stuff that needs F2.8 then the Canon 17-55mm is a no brainer. I just upgraded my 17-50mm to one purely because I wanted autofocus that still worked properly once the light got real low. IS was an added benefit.

If, however, you do not shoot at F2.8 often at all then the 15-85mm makes a lot more sense in that range.

Of course, if you don't need F2.8 and rarely drop below 24mm then the 24-105mm starts to make more sense.

If you get any of those lenses then you will not go wrong on the quality aspect, just spend some time making sure whatever you get is right for YOU
 
^^ What he said.
 
I would say it depends on weather you plan on going full frame in the near future (if at all). If so the 24-105 L is just about perfect for that, if not then the 17-55 2.8 is best option imo, although ive only briefly used one but ive heard great things.
 
RichardtheSane said:
OK, garnering opinion on lenses is good, but all these opinions are going to be based on the posters shooting style, not your own.

Look through your photos, see how many are shot in the 17-50mm range. Then look and see if you need the F2.8 aperture.
Click to expand...

While I agree with the sentiment of this advice I would caution that it may only tell the OP that he has shot the majority of his photos in that range solely because that is currently all that is available to him (with his current Tamron 17-50).

I would suggest that if the majority of shots are towards the 50mm end then it may be the case that extra reach would be useful and thus the 15-85 or the 24-105 maybe more worthy of consideration than the 17-55.

RichardtheSane said:
If you do stuff that needs F2.8 then the Canon 17-55mm is a no brainer. I just upgraded my 17-50mm to one purely because I wanted autofocus that still worked properly once the light got real low. IS was an added benefit.
Click to expand...

Similarly (in my 40D days) I went from the Tamron 17-50 to the Canon 17-55 for this reason too. I found the Tammy AF very frustrating in low light, it used to hunt all over the place (and sound like an air tool while doing it).

That extra 5mm at the long end was also surprisingly noticeable.

RichardtheSane said:
If, however, you do not shoot at F2.8 often at all then the 15-85mm makes a lot more sense in that range.

Of course, if you don't need F2.8 and rarely drop below 24mm then the 24-105mm starts to make more sense.

If you get any of those lenses then you will not go wrong on the quality aspect, just spend some time making sure whatever you get is right for YOU
Click to expand...

I've not got any experience of the 15-85 but I haven't heard much bad said about it and I would agree the focal range is very good on crop. (I did have a the 17-85 before the 17-50 and I never got on with it but the range was good).

I would still stand by the 17-55 as being the best choice. As much as I love my 24-105 if I had a crop body then I would have a 17-55 to go with it. Don't get hung up on the lack of the (L) red ring. Optically it is arguably every bit as good as the 24-105 and 24-70 L's. Build is not quite L but not shabby either.
 
Mikey. said:
I would say it depends on weather you plan on going full frame in the near future (if at all). If so the 24-105 L is just about perfect for that, if not then the 17-55 2.8 is best option imo, although ive only briefly used one but ive heard great things.
Click to expand...

I would say buy the best for what body you have now, not for what you might have in the future. The 17-55 holds its value very well and will sell easily.
 
Well you make the 17-55 more appealing by the minute! Looking through my collection, I generally shoot higher than 17mm. However, I have noticed that some of my proudest photos, particularly my landscapes, have been shot at 17mm! ChrisJ - as a previous owner of my current lens, would you say you found the Canon 17-55 gave significant advantage over the Tamron? Was it worth the extra cost?
 
Eddzz!! said:
Well you make the 17-55 more appealing by the minute! Looking through my collection, I generally shoot higher than 17mm. However, I have noticed that some of my proudest photos, particularly my landscapes, have been shot at 17mm! ChrisJ - as a previous owner of my current lens, would you say you found the Canon 17-55 gave significant advantage over the Tamron? Was it worth the extra cost?
Click to expand...

In short, a big yes.

Longer answer....

I bought the Tamron mainly because I was a bit disappointed with the 17-85 (aperture and image quality), I would have bought the 17-55 at this time but I was a bit short on funds.

I did like the Tamron optically (definitely a big improvement over the 17-85) other than the issues I mentioned. A 'bit' short, AF hunting in low light etc.

A used 17-55 came up at the LCE and I traded the 17-85 and 17-50 against it and never looked back.

The addition of the (very good) IS along with the f/2.8 aperture make it very versatile. The AF is much faster (and quieter) than the Tammy and the availability of full time manual focus is another bonus too. Optically the Canon is ahead also (although the Tamron isn't at all bad).

Don't get me wrong, I would still say the Tamron 17-50 is a very good lens for the money but IMO the Canon is definitely worth the difference. One of Canon's best.
 
Okay! Well that's pretty much swayed me! I think I'll get down to Jessops within the next few weeks and see if they have one that I can demo. I'm also keeping an eye on when the Tamron 24-70 is due for release over here and see what the actual price is going to be. RRP is nearly £1000 at the moment!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top