Best crop body Lens (wide to sub 100mm'ish)

rgrebby

rgrebby

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,835
Name
Richard
Edit My Images
Yes
For canon
I mean, sub 100mm ish as part of a two lens kit, the other lens being a long lens


I have the sigma 17-70 2.8-4.6 lens which is great, but what is the best walkabout lens for a cropped body?

the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L IS doesnt have the low mm that the sigma has for all the good wideangles
 
What's wrong with the 17-70? If it's doing the job for you, it's the best.

That said, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and third party (half the price) equivalents are all very good. You'd gain some image quality, some speed, IS on the Canon and sacrifice some range at the long end.
 
thats about as good as it gets on the crop :)

If you want to carry 2 lenses, then that opens up a lot more options, but for 1, you have one of the best.
 
17-55 but the 17-70 is a great lens as well!
 
For 250 nicker you wouldn't expect it to be.
 
Canon's 17-55mm is the best walkaround on a crop, end of story if price is not an issue.

If it is, the Tamron 17-50mm is a storming lens if you can live with the noisy motor and lightweigh build quality.
 
rgrebby said:
how does the 55 end compare to the 50mm 1.8?
Click to expand...

I have an album of test shots for sharpness at various focal lengths and apertures taken with my 17-55 and 17-85 lenses. Help yourself :)....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1755And1785SharpnessTest?authkey=Gv1sRgCKTe7Oaq8632GQ#

Since the AF speed and accuracy on the 50/1.8 is a bit pony, and there is no IS, you will most likely get superior results from the 17-55 in real world shooting. Focused right, I'm sure the 50/1.8 turns in fine results at f/2.8 and slower, for sharpness, but as soon as you stop it down from wide open the bokeh soon turns to bleeeuuurrrgggghhhhhh. I have the 50/1.8 and I've basically never used it for any keeper shots. The 17-55 is my tool of choice every time when I want to shoot in that focal length range. For wedding photography the 17-55 nabs about half my shots while my 70-200/2.8IS takes care of the rest. I now have the 50/1.4 but I'll only wheel that out in dim lighting when f/2.8 won't cut it, at a wedding for example.
 
honestly as a walkabout the 18-200 is a weapon of choice, however i've no idea how the canons etc perform as i'm a nikon user :)

obviously i understand you're asking as part of a 2 part set but then to me it's not a walk about, a walkabout for me would be one lens that i just walk around with :P rather than a bag of lenses that i walk around with that then become dubbed "walk about lenses" :)
 
tdodd said:
I have an album of test shots for sharpness at various focal lengths and apertures taken with my 17-55 and 17-85 lenses. Help yourself :)....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1755And1785SharpnessTest?authkey=Gv1sRgCKTe7Oaq8632GQ#

Since the AF speed and accuracy on the 50/1.8 is a bit pony, and there is no IS, you will most likely get superior results from the 17-55 in real world shooting. Focused right, I'm sure the 50/1.8 turns in fine results at f/2.8 and slower, for sharpness, but as soon as you stop it down from wide open the bokeh soon turns to bleeeuuurrrgggghhhhhh. I have the 50/1.8 and I've basically never used it for any keeper shots. The 17-55 is my tool of choice every time when I want to shoot in that focal length range. For wedding photography the 17-55 nabs about half my shots while my 70-200/2.8IS takes care of the rest. I now have the 50/1.4 but I'll only wheel that out in dim lighting when f/2.8 won't cut it, at a wedding for example.
Click to expand...

thanks mate. will be useful for me too
 
Another vote here for the 17-55 EF-S. Of course you can only use it on a crop body, so people always say about going full frame some time in the next century, so it's not worth getting it.

It is expensive, but it is the sharpest lens in my line up. It is always a joy to use and I would recommend it totally. I like the focal length for a walkabout too, catches some great shots. There's always a good SH market for them too.
 
Best? EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, end of.
 
The best quality lens will be the 17-55 F2.8 - but at a price.

Many swear by the Sigma 17-70, personally I only want internal focus lenses and have been happy with the results from my 17-85mm IS - should definitly be a consideration when you start looking at best value walkabout.

If canon, sigma, tokina etc did a 18-200mm lens that similar quality to the 18-200 competition and was internal focus USM I would buy it like a shot.
 
RichardtheSane said:
... happy with the results from my 17-85mm IS - should definitly be a consideration when you start looking at best value walkabout.
Click to expand...
This lens shouldn't be dismissed, especially considering how cheaply you can buy it secondhand these days. It's a very good lens, and is only now underrated because it's compared to the newer & much more expensive 17-55mm IS. It clearly depends how much you have to spend - there's no arguing that the 17-55mm is faster.

I have to say that I can't compare it to the 3rd-party lenses, as I had a bad experience with a Sigma & won't now consider them.

Stroller.
 
It so happens I have a random selection of real world shots taken with my 17-85 also online. This was my first lens, bought as a kit with my 30D. It served me well for a year and I have no complaints about its performance. The big reason I chose to upgrade to the 17-55 is for the constant f/2.8 aperture. It was not due to issues regarding IQ from the 17-85. Here's the album - remember, these are my first ever DSL photos, so be gentle :)....

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/1785?authkey=Gv1sRgCOXl_5uT68SoYA#

I won't mention which one, but one of those photos has sold 80 times in under two years on a stock photography website. I have made several other sales with images from that lens as well.
 
hmm, shame you cant get a 50D + 17-55mm bundle. Maybe you can but I cant find one.

Thanks the links guys, i'll add this to my possible lens research.
Wonder what they sell for second hand..
 
got to wait until my swag bag is more full ;)

The thing is, the cheapest 50D body is 824.99 as per cameraprice buster, the combo deal at WE is £1544.99. So the lens is £720 and im pretty sure I could get the lens cheaper than that, couldnt I?
 
rgrebby said:
maybe not as the lens is pretty expensive for a non L glass
Click to expand...

Whether or not it dons a red stripe has little impact on the image quality provided by this lens. It's fantastic!

Do try it, before you dismiss it.
 
Had a play with a 50D and the 17-55mm lens in jessops today, feels odd not having as much reach.
 
But how bright is that viewfinder at 55mm and f/2.8 instead of f/5.6? How much more of a joy will manual exposure be when the aperture doesn't keep moving around every time you adjust the zoom a bit? How much better will your hand held exposures be when the IS actually maintains sharpness at slow shutter speeds? With a lower ISO and sharper shots your ability to crop will be increased, and the 50D should still leave you plenty of pixels to play with.
 
that is true but the big list of new equipment is growing fast. Although my budget is pretty good (relevantly speaking)

Im of doing a whole new set up and keeping just my 400D as a backup.

50D
Long Lens (maybe 100-400)
Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS
maybe the 50mm 1.4 but im not sure if its worth it if I get the 17-55
another flash
umbrellas, stands
Monopod
New bag
ND grads
oh insurance...


Its a big list as im leaving the odd things out
Sell my Sigma 17-70 and my brand new Canon 70-300 IS and newish Battery Grip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top