Best "walkabout" lens (canon)

J

JohnECB

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I am lucky in that I have got some spare cash for a lens (and a new camera!) - although it is inheritence so not that lucky :'(

I am looking at the 24-70L f2.8

Do you think this is a good all round lens or should I be looking elsewhere? I currently have a 40D but have a 7D on order with Kerso. My current lens is the 40D kit (15-85) and I have real low(ish) light issues with it, especially hunting so I know for that it will be better but is it worth the money? (is that me - I've read others with similar issues) I've read the reviews but I'd be really grateful for some real life feedback! btw my other lens are a 70-200L f4, 50mm 1.8, 100mm Macro and Sigma 10-20 - I think this lens fits in quite nicely but am I missing something? I shoot a real variety including landscapes (which I'd want to use this lens for panamoric), portrait, cats (for a breeder) and the general stuff you do when you are just carrying your camera.

Thanks
 
I own a 24-70, and it's truly an exceptional lens. I use it as a walk around for personal work, but I also shoot portraits and other commercial jobs with it. It's one of the best all-rounders I've ever used.

At the 24mm ends it's just a tiny bit cramped on a crop sensor, but it's still very capable, and is great at the 70mm end for subtle street photography.

Great Bokeh, my only issue with it is it's auto focus in low light. It can be a bit crap at times, but no worse than most other lenses.

Looking at your other lenses, the 24-70 will fit in there just perfect.
 
I thought about buying the 24-70L but in the end I chosen the 24-105L.

The reasons are its lighter, longer focal length means you dont have to take out the 70-200L and it has IS. Regards hunting, the L lens is on a completely new level. I owned the kit lens and 50mm 1.4 USM. The L lens is incredibly fast.

17-40L is worth considerating too.
 
I would go for a 24-105L Just invested in one myself to replace the 17-85 kit lens. Its a fab piece of kit and I really dont think you will find 24 is not wide enough(mine is on a 40D)

Sorry about the circumstances surrounding your "windfall"
 
fleaz said:
For crop, you can't go wrong with the 17-55 2.8
Click to expand...

Laudrup said:
On a crop I'd go 17-55mm f/2.8.
Click to expand...

i agree with the above for an all purpose walk around lens.

24mm equates to a FF AOV of just under 40mm which is not very wide at all.

The 17-55 f2.8 gives you an AOV on crop equiv to approx 28-90 on FF which is much more suitable for a walkaround lens. Add in the f2.8 max aperture and IS and it's a no brainer really!
 
+1 for the 17-55 IS, i had the the 24-105 and although its a cracking lens its just not quite wide enough.
 
EdBray said:
i agree with the above for an all purpose walk around lens.

24mm equates to a FF AOV of just under 40mm which is not very wide at all.

The 17-55 f2.8 gives you an AOV on crop equiv to approx 28-90 on FF which is much more suitable for a walkaround lens. Add in the f2.8 max aperture and IS and it's a no brainer really!
Click to expand...

^^^ What Ed said. I have the 17-55 2.8 IS :thumbs:

IMHO the only alternative for 'best' walkabout is the new Canon 15-85 3.5-5.6 IS. It's not out yet, but the range is obviously wonderful - no other standard zoom goes down to 15mm, which is really quite wide, 24mm full frame equivalent - and it promises to be high quality (and price). But of course you lose a stop or two of aperture vs the 2.8 lens.

It's here http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=19196
 
Since you have 10-20mm you don't really need 17-55 IS, that is otherwise great lens. Canon 24-105mm IS or 24-70mm or Tamron 28-75mm as a low cost alternative would be the main options. It depends how much you need f/2.8 or the IS. After f/5.6 24-105mm holds a clear advantage, and 105mm is very handy when you only take 1 lens. f/2.8 is great when the light is low and flash can't be used. On tripod 24-70mm is a better choice for landscapes, but 24-105 is better handheld.

Rant: I wish they made 20-105mm f/2.8 IS or at least 24-70mm f/2 IS
 
The 24-70mm f2.8 or 24-105mm f4 just don't work with the 1.6x crop sensor camera's if you are needing wide angle for landscapes. I get away with using the 24-105mm f4 on the 1D because its only a 1.3x crop sensor.

The question your really need to ask yourself is, are you intending to go full frame as this might have some influence on your choice.

The 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S is a great lens and one I would recommend for the cropped sensor camera's, however, it's an EF-S lens so will only work on them. The 17-40mm f4 EF lens is an alternative or a cheaper alternative is the tamron 17-50mm f2.8

canon have just released new several lenses, you could have a look at the 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 EF-S lens or the 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 EF-S lens, but both are relatively new and not too many reviews on their performances at the moment.

It's a shame that the 17-85mm EF-S lens performance is average at best, perhaps thats why canon have released the 15-85mm as a replacement?

Peter
 
True but the OP has a Sigma 10-22 to cover that and is after advice for a walkabout lens!!
 
Paul Philpott said:
True but the OP has a Sigma 10-22 to cover that and is after advice for a walkabout lens!!
Click to expand...

I have both Canon 10-22 and 17-55. On general walkabout the 17-55 gets most use but I wouldn't be without the 10-22.

The combination of a 10-20ish and 24-105 sounds workable, but it certainly would not be for me - I'd be forever changing lenses and cursing. The change over point is right smack in the zone I use most.

I think Canon chose the overlap at wide angle for a good reason. On the other hand, at the longer end I have nothing between 55mm and 70mm and that doesn't seem to be a problem with a bit of foot zoom.
 
I'd go L glass for pure quality and f2.8 for low light and speed. esp portraits of pets!
then keep the old kit lens for occasional wide angle stuff

I'm going personally for the 17-55is but for walkabout, reach is always nice.

can you put a TC 1.4x on the 17-55 is EF-S?
 
I really like my 17-40mm- though I do wish it was a bit longer (Currently saving for 24-105 + 5m2)
 
I recently went from a 17-85 to 24-105.

Prior to doing so I checked through lots of shots and found that a lot were
>24 so decide that it was no problem going 24-105. However I do have a Sigma 10-20 when need arises.

I guess its personal preference and type of use that decides what is good or not!!

What I do know is that an L lens will allways beat other lens in terms of IQ!!
 
Another vote for an L lens, they really do make a huge difference, out of all of my lens the L's are extremely quick at focusing and will focus even in very low light really well.
 
Thanks for all of your replies - but some of you have now made me question my views completely!

My reasons for going L were quality and 'investment' - in as much that I reasoned I could keep them if or when I went FF. Maybe I'm just kidding myself! I know my sigma would be no good. If the 5dm2 had a better fps I'd go for that now over the 7d - I sometimes shoot WW2 planes (I get very close access fortunately) and my 40d is ok for that but I don't want to risk the stepdown.

I have read some people saying that the IS on the 24-105 is worth the stop over the 24-70 - and I have a 580EX and people have said to use the AF assist in lower light but I'm just not good or qualified enough to comment as I don't own either lens!

Thanks for all your answers
 
Paul Philpott said:
I recently went from a 17-85 to 24-105.

Prior to doing so I checked through lots of shots and found that a lot were
>24 so decide that it was no problem going 24-105. However I do have a Sigma 10-20 when need arises.

I guess its personal preference and type of use that decides what is good or not!!

What I do know is that an L lens will allways beat other lens in terms of IQ!!
Click to expand...

But what would you rather have, 1 lens that cover both aspects and is a better option than his 17-85mm or the process of changing and carrying 2 lenses.

I have the canon 10-22mm for my 20D, but would rarely use this lens as a walkabout lens, it's used for very specific shots, and like the op, the 17-85 just doesn't deliver better than average performance, although it has it's moment, now and again.

As a walk around lens the 24-105mm or 24-70mm just doesn't work on a 1.6x crop sensor camera, I tried on my 20D (and why I use the 24-105mm on my 1D), because they frames like a 39mm lens on the cropped sensor, so you don't get the benefits of 24mm.

That why a 17-55mm would be a better choice, perhaps the new 15-85mm canon has just introduced might fit the bill or if the op wants to move to FF, then a 17-40mm would also benefit him while he still has a cropped sensor camera.
 
Can I ask why people think that the new 15-85 will be in the same class as the 17-55. The former will be an f3.5-5.6, whereas the latter is a constant f2.8. Yes, the older lens will lose out in terms of longer focal length, but surely it will cover more situations. (forgive me, but I've not looked into the price of the 15-85; I assume that it will be "high" for the first few months).
 
nickwatson said:
Can I ask why people think that the new 15-85 will be in the same class as the 17-55. The former will be an f3.5-5.6, whereas the latter is a constant f2.8. Yes, the older lens will lose out in terms of longer focal length, but surely it will cover more situations. (forgive me, but I've not looked into the price of the 15-85; I assume that it will be "high" for the first few months).
Click to expand...

Not placing it in the same class as the 17-55mm f2.8, but as a walk around lens, the focal range is very useful on a cropped sensor being an EF-S lens (24-136mm). Price wise, WHExp 17-40mm f4 EF £630, 17-55mm f2.8 EF-S £794 and 15-85mm EF-S £700.

The 17-85mm was a great focal length for a walk around lens, unfortunately, image quality didn't match the price (when introduced), so putting hopes on the 15-85mm ironing out those problems and being a good lens, but would wait for a few reviews before making the plunge.
 
I thought long and hard about the 17-55mm f/2.8, 24-70mm f/2.8 and 24-105mm f/4.

I liked the IQ and range of the 17-55mm. Perhaps a little short for a proper walkabout, but the IS worked really well. For me, the "not quite L" build quality, lack of hood, and reported dust issues put me off.

The 24-70 is a great lens. I borrowed one for a few days and loved it. Great IQ, superb build quality. On a crop it is a bit long at the wide end, but ok for 90% of occasions.

I purchased the 24-105mm. It was a close fight with the 24-70mm but for me the extra range and decent IS outweighed the loss of a stop and slight loss of IQ. It has the range I need, good quality (both build and IQ) and IS.

If f/2.8 was really needed I would have chosen the 24-70mm.
 
If I had to buy today I'd go for 24-105mm. 105mm enables taking of decent headshots, and longer F landscapes, while 24mm is still moderately wide. Sometimes taking a step back gives a proper composition and helps to keep the verticals straight-ish. My 12-24mm is a stellar lens, but at nearly all settings it demands paramount precision with framing and attention to the smallest detail. It takes stunning photos but it is more than easy to snap lots of utter rubbish. 24-105mm is a little more 'rubbish'-resistant.
 
daugirdas said:
If I had to buy today I'd go for 24-105mm. 105mm enables taking of decent headshots, and longer F landscapes, while 24mm is still moderately wide. Sometimes taking a step back gives a proper composition and helps to keep the verticals straight-ish. My 12-24mm is a stellar lens, but at nearly all settings it demands paramount precision with framing and attention to the smallest detail. It takes stunning photos but it is more than easy to snap lots of utter rubbish. 24-105mm is a little more 'rubbish'-resistant.
Click to expand...

But your not taking an image at 24mm with the 24-105mm on a cropped sensor because your framing the image at 39mm, so not wide angle at all, and thats the point I'm trying to make. You don't see the benefits of this lens on a 1.6x crop sensor camera, it's really designed for a full frame camera, and to acheive similar results, you would need something like the 15-85mm lens to give your the same focal range and wide angle that the 24-105 gives you on a full frame camera. :bang:
 
I think you are missing the poinrt Pete that there are people who do not find 24 on a crop sensor restrictive.

As I said before it is personal preference and useage
Remember the old saying ""one mans bread is another mans poison":bonk:
 
pete.rush said:
But your not taking an image at 24mm with the 24-105mm on a cropped sensor because your framing the image at 39mm, so not wide angle at all, and thats the point I'm trying to make. You don't see the benefits of this lens on a 1.6x crop sensor camera, it's really designed for a full frame camera, and to acheive similar results, you would need something like the 15-85mm lens to give your the same focal range and wide angle that the 24-105 gives you on a full frame camera. :bang:
Click to expand...

In the old days most people including pros used to do just fine with 50mm and took excellent photos. 24-105mm does much more than that on either crop or FF. I don't see a reason why a super duper extremely ultra wideangle is a must for a walkabout. Yes, 24-105mm is better on FF, so maybe then it is time to change the camera instead of buying the nearly obsolete EF-S lenses?
 
daugirdas said:
so maybe then it is time to change the camera instead of buying the nearly obsolete EF-S lenses?
Click to expand...

EF-S lenses you feel are nearly obsolete? On what basis? Do you feel that in the next year or two we will see a move away from crop sensors and a production of ONLY full frame ones? It's something I have always pondered, whether to spend a lot on an EF-S lens I have to say.
 
clicktor said:
EF-S lenses you feel are nearly obsolete? On what basis? Do you feel that in the next year or two we will see a move away from crop sensors and a production of ONLY full frame ones? It's something I have always pondered, whether to spend a lot on an EF-S lens I have to say.
Click to expand...

Not in a year or two as 7D will be still current, but in 5 or 10 years it is more than likely. With many people upgrading to FF as we speak, the resale value of high end EF-S lenses is likely to fall. In the region of £200 I would say it doesn't matter much, since poor FF glass is not much better alternative. In fact I should be looking for 5D now.
 
I think a lot of people move to full frame for the wrong reasons, i.e. no real ones, but rather to be able to say they shoot full frame. A bit like the L glass thing really. Whilst there are clear benefits to it, I'd beg to differ on some people's opinions as to the importance of it. As for 5 - 10 years time, I think it might be sooner than that.
 
clicktor said:
I think a lot of people move to full frame for the wrong reasons, i.e. no real ones, but rather to be able to say they shoot full frame. A bit like the L glass thing really. Whilst there are clear benefits to it, I'd beg to differ on some people's opinions as to the importance of it. As for 5 - 10 years time, I think it might be sooner than that.
Click to expand...

We can only GUESS when that will happen. Hence 17-55mm IS is one of the riskiest purchases. For comparison, how much did Canon FD 85mm f/1.2L cost one year after the discontinuation of the whole FD line?

My reasons for FF are:
* Proper large viewfinder. EOS 5 was just about right, 40D is too small
* My 24-70mm will give proper DOF, and will be wider
* Better dynamic range and ISO performance
* Longer shutter life
* Large and more comfortable to hold body
* In my case any FF will have more MPs
* and the fact it is FF :nuts:
 
The arguements about smaller cropped sensor camera's being phased out and everyone going full frame has been going on for ages, it's a load of %$£*~@?, and for someone to bias their judgement on what lenses to buy or camera body to buy, just because they believe these rumours is plain stupid.

The cropped sensor camera's will be around for years to come and Nikon and Canon will still manufacture both types.

As for the EF-S lenses, not sure, but canon have just release several this year, which would suggest at the moment their continuing to support and develop this type of lens.
 
It wouldn't surprise me if in years to come, as technology advances, that relic from the film era, the full frame camera, will be dropped in favour of APS-C!
 
Dudie said:
It wouldn't surprise me if in years to come, as technology advances, that relic from the film era, the full frame camera, will be dropped in favour of APS-C!
Click to expand...

and 6 years ago my mum told me everyone would be using compacts by now :gag::thinking::shrug::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


:razz: :razz: :razz: :razz:
 
and 6 years ago my mum told me everyone would be using compacts by now
Click to expand...

And that's kind of the point. No-one knows. And let's face it, there are far more compacts sold than SLRs and far more crop sensor SLRs than full frame. If I were in business as a maker of cameras, I know which avenue I'd be taking.....
 
Another vote for the 17-55 f2.8 EFS. I've got one it's great (well it was untill I dropped it ...urps). Compliments my 70-200 very nicely thankyou.

No way is it risky. Canon going to drop the EFS range. They've just brought out the 7D and that takes EFS and they are bringing out more EFS lenses every year.
 
Just been into a Jessops and had a play with a 24-105 L IS and a 17-55 f2.8 EFS. Both really nice but if I had to get one as a walkaround it would be the 24-105. Colours were gorgeous. However I have decided WA shots are not really for me so I don't mind the slightly longer focal length of the 24-105 on a crop body.
 
APS-C is here to stay, the 7D is an evidence of that move. Canon is pushing it, and now an "entry" professional APS-C cropped camera to go along side it's FF bigger brother 5Dii.

The 17-55 is not a risk, but everything crop can do, FF can do better :p
 
Raymond Lin said:
The 17-55 is not a risk, but everything crop can do, FF can do better :p
Click to expand...

Except "zoom" I presume? (Note, I mean that genuinely)

I take landscapes and wildlife and I'm debating the 7D or 5Dmkii. The problem is the lack of "EF-S L". The new EF-S lenses fill a gap between walkabout and say a 100-400 nicely, which wasn't really available before, but its just not L and with what people say about it you just feel like you may be missing out on quality, and it's that which keeps the 5Dmkii in contention for me, but then I lose "range". Can't win!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top