Best Canon walkabout lens

C

Carlm90

Suspended / Banned
Messages
189
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
No
I'm about to invest in a new camera and I'm wondering what lens I should buy to be my general walkabout lens. I am looking for a lens and I don't really have a budget for it so please try to offer a scope on the amount that I could pay and the amount that I could find comfortable. I want to carry one lens about most of the time and will be looking to capture a shot quickly with quick auto-focus. The camera I'm likely to invest in will be a Canon 550D. Should I add £50 to the body and get a 50D instead? Anyone tell me why I should and should not do this? I'm not a big video user.

I hope you can help recommend something.

Carl
 
Canon 28-135mm is an awesome lens. It's good for portraiture, close-ups (not macro), landscapes, etc.
 
At only £369 on Jessops website, it's not a bad price either. That's an option, thank you!
 
EF 28-135 is pretty good glass for your buck but if you can spare it look for a used EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM, that's the Canon walk about lens :thumbs:
 
TinaC said:
My walkabout is the Sigma 18-200 OS, love it and get some decent shots, it is only limited by my skill. Not a particularly fast lens and I struggle with it in low light situations but suits what I do.

What do you want to photograph?
Click to expand...

I have a bit of spare time on my hands so I would like to have a go at shooting things like premieres and events. I would like to do portraiture and landscapes aswell. That adds quite a bit of scope on what I would like to do but I hope that it will help.
 
The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 has been my standard walkabout lens on a 40D for over a year. It's my go-to lens for a trip out. Nice field of view, sharp, stitches nicely for wide panoramas and is plenty fast enough for low light events.

I have a big set of examples here, and this discussion on Flickr is worth a read.
 
Guys, the OP is on cropped format. 24-105 etc is for full frame cameras and too long at the short end for walkabout. Which is why Canon makes several walkabout lenses for crop format, all starting around 17-18mm.

Best of them all is the wonderful Canon 17-55 2.8, but pricey. New Canon 15-85 has great range (15mm is usefully wider) and is sharp. Bit cheaper. Then there's the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC version) which gets very good reviews for the price. Canon 18-200 is better than some people think for such a long range, also pricey, but at the other extreme the humble 18-55 kit lens is pretty good and extremely good value.

My choice would be 17-55 2.8 or 15-85 on a 50D. Very potent walkabout combos, good for portraits, okay for landscape and architecture. Save up and wait if you have to.

Some of these are quite different lenses to use, so you need to try. Also the 550D and 50D handle very differently.

Edit: forgot to mention the new Canon 18-135 - longer version of the 18-55 kit zoom, but well regarded for the price. Prices here http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat5.html Remember that if you shoot Raw and process in the free Canon DPP software, the custom lens correction suite improves the performance of some of these lenses quite substantially. Avoid the Canon 17-85.
 
HoppyUK said:
Guys, the OP is on cropped format. 24-105 etc is for full frame cameras and too long at the short end for walkabout.
Click to expand...

You're entitled to an opinion Hoppers but it doesn't speak for everyone... for most purposes, on a crop body I found 24mm was perfectly fine. Don't forget, many people 'walk about' with compacts which at best, mostly only go down to ~28 mm equiv. Many compacts still 'only' go as wide as 35mm equiv.

If we follow your logic through, then we could say that every EF lens is for full frame cameras only... :shrug:

Some people also define walkabout totally differently. There are folk on here who would consider their widest UWA a walkabout, whereas others will walkabout with a 70-200. All things considered I think 24/28-105 is a pretty nice range to have.

That's just my opinion though.
 
Vote for the 24-105 here use it most of the time on my 7D. Never found it an issue. Lovely bit of glass, can get some cracking shots.
 
trencheel303 said:
You're entitled to an opinion Hoppers but it doesn't speak for everyone... for most purposes, on a crop body I found 24mm was perfectly fine. Don't forget, many people 'walk about' with compacts which at best, mostly only go down to ~28 mm equiv. Many compacts still 'only' go as wide as 35mm equiv.

If we follow your logic through, then we could say that every EF lens is for full frame cameras only... :shrug:

Some people also define walkabout totally differently. There are folk on here who would consider their widest UWA a walkabout, whereas others will walkabout with a 70-200. All things considered I think 24/28-105 is a pretty nice range to have.

That's just my opinion though.
Click to expand...

Mine is only an opion also, but it's a pretty widely held one that the OP should be aware of. A walkabout lens is one that goes both usefully wider and longer than standard, with standard being around 30mm-ish. 24mm is equivalent to 38mm on crop format, hardly wide at all.

There are major benefits to using EF-S lenses on crop format cameras. That's why Canon (and others) make so many of them, all around the 17-18mm mark. The full frame equivalents are EF lenses around 24-28mm, as you would expect.

That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use EF lenses on a crop camera, but the OP needs to know what the options are, the lenses that Canon intended for the purpose, and nobody seems to have mentioned.

Futhermore, it doesn't follow at all that you should only use EF-S lenses on a crop format camera. I didn't say that and it's not true. The benefits of designing lenses specifically for the cropped format runs out quickly beyond 50-60mm or so, which is why neither Nikon nor Canon makes DX/EF-S starting any longer than that. There is little to gained above that, but a lot to be had below it in terms range, size, weight, f/number and cost.
 
I've just been looking for the same for my 20D but on a budget, I ended up with the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I ended up paying £120 with hood and UV filter it looks in perfect condition apart from minor marks on the bayonet from the hood. I used it at the Goodwood festival of speed and found it was long enough most of the time I may have preferred a little more length for the shots on track and I would have liked a little shorted for static car piccies, the pics were good but you was far enough away that some git usually walked between you and the subject for the shot :)

This was a typical as close as I could get static piccy:

green%2050s%20yank%20not%20hdr%20900.jpg


I think its a good choice for the money and I'm happy with the purchase. they can be had for £75ish if your patient. If my pockets were deeper I'd probably have gone for the newer 28-135mm IS version or maybe even 18-135mm but they are both a good bit bigger, the 28-105 is very compact and portable.
 
Have a look here for some reviews, personally I'd sty away from super zooms like 18-200mm as they are to much of a compromise and as such IQ suffers, from a personal point of view I'd agree with HOPPY that 24-70mm is not wide enough on a crop body, when i had a crop sensor i swapped my 24-70mm to a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 for that very reason, and if you fancy a Canon 24-105mmm do a search on here first not everyone has a high option of the IQ vs cost.

Oh on the 50D question - again personally it was the worst camera i have ever had the misfortune to own. - have a look at a used 40D if you want the better build quality a XXD body will give you.
 
my personal choice is the 17-85 IS canon lens, served me well as my standard lens for about 3 years and still going strong.
 
EF 24-105 f/4 L IS USM

This is always the default lens mounted on my 5D2 out of bag. If I spot something on a time limit and need to whip out a camera body quick I've never failed with this lens. Well, nearly never.

You really should think about future upgrades here. The camera body YOU WILL upgrade in time but if you invest in your glass wisely now they'll stay with you over many camera bodies and beyond.

Quality glass also holds its price better with some earlier EOS L series lenses holding a handsome price when compared to its newer brother or sister.

Visit your local Canon dealer and see if they offer a hire service, that way you really can see what works best for your style.
 
AndrewA123 said:
my personal choice is the 17-85 IS canon lens, served me well as my standard lens for about 3 years and still going strong.
Click to expand...

Although I dissed this lens earlier, and it's not one of Canon's finest (too much distortion and CA), it has good range, IS, and is very nice to use. I got a lot of good images with it. Best of all, there are a few about and you can pick up a good used one for under £200.

Further, I mentioned Canon's DPP software above and it transforms this lens's performance :thumbs: See review and DPP test shots here http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_17-85_4-5p6_is_usm_c16/page3.asp
 
On a crop, the absolute best is the 17-55 f2.8 IS but its pricey. The 24mm lenses are just not wide enough on a canon crop in my opinion.
 
The 17-55mm would be superb. The 24-105mm IS is quite restricting on the wide end.
 
I'll go against the grain here, but I'll generally have the 70-200 on. I just prefer that length, and for people shots I prefer to be a bit further back, but I'm not the norm or sure...
 
Carlm90 said:
I'm about to invest in a new camera and I'm wondering what lens I should buy to be my general walkabout lens....

....I hope you can help recommend something.

Carl
Click to expand...

As you can see, there are a lot of different options that could function as a walk-about lens, and only you can really decide what would be most suitable, based on how and what you shoot!

Personally, I'd say the Canon 17-55 is the best walkabout lens (or the Tamron 17-50 if you're also factoring price into your decision :) ). I'm currently moving to full-frame, so have got a 24-70 on the front of my 50D, and although usable, I do find it a little restricting at the wide end.

Chris
 
17-55 IS or the 24-105 F4 L IS are the best. Please don't buy a new 28-135 as it's just a decent lens and you can pick them up second hand on her or av forums for about £160-£180.
 
I'd go for the 15-85 as the best compromise of range and quality. 17-55 is just not long enough for what I want in a walkabout lens.
 
If OP goes for the 550D, I'd say just go for the kit and get the 18-55 IS. It's not a superb lens, but it'll serve most of anyones photographing needs for a while. It's quite sharp, and performs adequately, especially for its price tag and build quality. While you use the kit lens, you might find out more about your future lens needs. By walking around with the kit lens, you'll find out wether you take more wide shots than zoomed, hence you'll find out that a wider lens is what to go for. If you use zoom a lot, then save for something with better range.
Personally, the kit lens doesn't fulfill my needs in any way, but it is far more capable than many give it credit for.
 
seriously the 24-105 is without doubt the one to go for, as previously said, think about future upgrades in bodies and this lens will still be your walkabout lens it is an amazing piece of kit. Once you go L there's no going back!
 
I can personally recommend the Canon EFs 17-55mm F2.8 IS also as great walkabout lens which would be great for both portriats and landscapes. It stayed on my camera most of the time. Granted it doesn't have the reach like that of the 24-105mm, but on a crop body I would find 24mm too restrictive for landscapes. Don't know much about the 15-85mm, might be worth checking out.

Another thing to consider is if you'd want to go full frame in the next few years, if you do it would mean any EFs lenses would not work on full frame camera bodies. Having said this, I wouldn't worry about this too much as it's what you want to do now with your gear that's important.

The 50D and 17-55mm would be a great combo. :)
 
Rayn said:
If OP goes for the 550D, I'd say just go for the kit and get the 18-55 IS. It's not a superb lens, but it'll serve most of anyones photographing needs for a while. It's quite sharp, and performs adequately, especially for its price tag and build quality. While you use the kit lens, you might find out more about your future lens needs. By walking around with the kit lens, you'll find out wether you take more wide shots than zoomed, hence you'll find out that a wider lens is what to go for. If you use zoom a lot, then save for something with better range.
Personally, the kit lens doesn't fulfill my needs in any way, but it is far more capable than many give it credit for.
Click to expand...

I think you've got a good point there, why rush in and buy a walkabout lens when you're not entirely sure what pictures you'll be taking. Get the kit, learn the camera and then decide on the next step to take as although good glass is a fantastic investment it costs a fair bit - buy in haste & repent at leisure.

I use whatever lens is going to be best for the particular walk that I'm doing but as a rule it's my 24-70 that lives on the camera and that's captured some great shots. There is the odd occasion where it would be nice to go wider but I guess that's the price I pay of my planned move to FF.
 
the 18-55 IS is actually pretty good. The barrel distortion is easily fixable in DPP, and the colours aren't wonderful but again they can be given that extra zing in post.
 
I've got to disagree with those folks who say that you should buy lenses with a view to upgrading to full frame in the future. Sure, you can do that, but be aware of the implications.

Cost. Full frame is much more expensive. Most people never go there, and don't even want to.

If you use full frame lenses on a crop camera, you are either paying for something you can't make full use of, or losing out on specification. You get more for less on a cropper.

If and when you do change to full frame, your lenses will behave completely differently. And meanwhile, you are not making the most of the benefits of crop format.

If you buy quality stuff in the first place, you can sell it on easily for good money. I sold my EF-S 17-55 2.8 on here within hours. Considering the overall cost of going full frame, you won't lose much.
 
On FF/1.3cf the 24-105 offers good range for use as a walkabout lens,

on a 1.6 crop one has to ask what is the priority especially if L' glass is gong to be used,

landscapes id use something like a 17-40 or 16-35 ect
for mainly portraits & more general stuff again 24-105 excels (I use on 7D for weddings in lieu of heavy 70-200 with 24-80 on 5D)

Al'
 
HoppyUK said:
I've got to disagree with those folks who say that you should buy lenses with a view to upgrading to full frame in the future. Sure, you can do that, but be aware of the implications.
Click to expand...

The best EF-S lenses hold there value extremely well. I actually sold my 17-55 IS USM for almost exactly the same as what I paid for it second hand.

My advice if buy the gear that best suits you now and use it to the full instead of compromising for a (possible) need in the future.
 
Canon 17-55 is 2.8 is widely regarded as the best, or if budget is an issue then the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. For most situations the 2.8 could come in useful, and in my opinion more valuable than the extra reach. As others have said if you buy good second hand, most lenses keep their value. 17-50 is rough equivalent to 24-70 on a FF. Walkabout lens i would say that is ideal range. 24-105 is a nice lens, but on crop it isn't wide enough for a lot of situations, and personally I wouldn't think the extra length would be worth the compromise of 1 more stop of light and the wide end being ideal for landscapes etc.

Everyone has their own opinion, but if you are used to it, the wide end will be missed if you go 24-28 minimum wide angle on a crop, and like L glass, once you get it, you never go back.
 
Another vote for the 17-55 2.8. It's worth saving for and as others have said you could still sell on easily for a good price if you wanted to change lenses. I think it keeps it's secondhand value well as most people with one wouldn't part with it.

As a walkaround lens it's range was spot on for me - what is walkaround to you? Streets, towns, landscapes ? etc ? For me it was the perfect lens for going onto the street and taking nice close portraits and also more wide angle context townscapes. Some of my best landscapes were taken with that lens. I would have prefered an extra 10 or so mm on the long end so it took it into my 70-200 territory, but that was a minor minor niggle. A very sharp, very usable lens.
 
FFS the threads donkeys years ignore me :)
 
Last edited:
Still an interesting thread and I'm going to reply on it lol.

For me the 24-105L is a lovely lens and great as a walk about. However I find it too short on full frame to be of sole use as my holiday catch all lens. It does a pretty good job, but not perfect. I also worry a little as it isn't cheap. And the fact I traded mine in on a 24-70 doesn't help either. For this reason I have bought a 28-135. I used to own one years ago. I quite liked it, especially the range and have invested in another one. Mind you saying that in the same vein I have bought a 7d so I don't have to take the 5d mk11 on holiday too. A little over kill, but the man maths worked for me.

I have a 24-70 too, which is nice, but again too short on full frame and likewise on crop - for my walk round purposes.

So after all that ramble I don't have a catch all lens, I have a couple of them. It depends where I'm going and what I expect to do which one I take.
 
My opinion goes like this;

APS-C - EF-S 15-85.

APS-H - EF 17-40L

FF - EF 24-105L.

Being honest though, the EF-S 18-55 is a brilliant lens. As Trencheel303 says, most of the flaws are easily fixable in PP.
 
When choosing a walkabout lens I want something that gives me a fair range so that I have some width and some telephoto capability as the need arises.

IMO the choise is simply between Canon's 24-105 and the 15-85. I have used both on a 7D and each has their advantages.

The 24-105 is an L series lens and is the better lens in both build quality and sharpness. I do however agree that on a croppped body the 24 is perhaps not wide enough (equates to about 38mm).

The 15-85 is nearly as sharp, not quite so well built (but much better than the kit lens). It does however have more width (yes the difference between 15mm and 24mm is noticeable) and is that bit cheaper.

I had the 18-55 and soon got disappointed with that. I tried the 17-85 and that was not much better. I now have a 17-40 for our full frame body and although it is a very good lens its range is too limited in my opinion for a walkabout lens. Although I have not tried it I think the 17-55 would also be too limited.
 
farrance said:
My opinion goes like this;

APS-C - EF-S 15-85.

APS-H - EF 17-40L

FF - EF 24-105L.

Being honest though, the EF-S 18-55 is a brilliant lens. As Trencheel303 says, most of the flaws are easily fixable in PP.
Click to expand...

That is the exact order I would go for also. I have tried all 3 and have stuck with the 15-85 for over a year now.:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top