Canon walk about lens

P

piggin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
614
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
Having read this thread earlier today, I realised, I am in the same predicament.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=363755

I did not want to hijack the thread so started my own.
I have the Sigma 70 - 200 f2.8 & a Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF.
I am now looking around for a better walkabout lens for my Canon 50D.
Basically I am looking to replace my Tamron with a better piece of glass.
Thanks
 
How about the Canon 15-85mm, I have one and love it and I see there's one in the classifieds (nothing to do with me)
 
Well the question will be what is wrong with the Tamron? The range, feel, contrast, sharpness etc? What is the minimum focal lengh you require?
 
But why would he want to replace an f2.8 lens with a f3.5-5.6 apart from its longer focal length range. As Akr said, what's wrong with the Tamron 17-50mm?
 
Sorry for not putting this information in earlier :shake:
Last weekend I had a Canon 24-105mm f/4 on my 50D.
I was away in Bristol for the weekend & took the camera with me to kill some time when the Mrs went around all the shops.
I had the canon & Tamron lenses with me, so I could take some comparison pictures.
When I compared the pictures, I found that the ones taken with the canon were sharper & the focus was quicker without any hunting (as for the reasons why, unfortunately I can't answer that, due to being a nOOb)

Unfortunately the Canon had to go back to its original owner.
This started me thinking about upgrading my walkabout lens.
I have been looking @ the

SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM
Canon 24 - 105mm f4 L
Canon 24 - 70mm f2.8 L
Canon 17 - 55mm f2.8 L

All have their good & bad points but now I am just confusing myself with so many choices.
 
I would say the Tamron 17-50 is one of the best value-for-money lenses available. It's definitely sharper than the Sigma 24-70. The two Canon's you've listed are great lenses, but personally I find 24mm too long on a crop sensor for the shortest end.

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the best walkabout lens of that length, but whether it's worth the price difference over the Tamron is debatable. It's slightly sharper, and has IS, but is a fair bit more expensive. It's also not an 'L' lens (not that it's any issue at all, just for reference).

Chris
 
piggin said:
Last weekend I had a Canon 24-105mm f/4 on my 50D......When I compared the pictures, I found that the ones taken with the canon were sharper & the focus was quicker without any hunting .........Unfortunately the Canon had to go back to its original owner.
This started me thinking about upgrading my walkabout lens.
Click to expand...

Hi

Did you find the Canon 24-105 the ideal length for you when you did your comparison last weekend - if so, I think you've answered your own question and the 24-105 is the one you want and need to get :thumbs:

Obviously gets more tricky if not... if not, perhaps try to expand on why not, was it not wide enough, not fast enough - I find if you try to look at each element seperately, you can get to the lens your after (or totally confuse matters and end up in a worse state :lol::lol:)

For me, the 24-105 would be my ideal focal length for a walk about, yes 2.8 would be nice, but the extra length is more suited to my needs - I used to have a 28-135IS lens and was very pleased with it and it was a great focal range for my needs.

Hope this is of some help ...
 
Hi

I would like to add my support for the Canon 24 - 105 lens. I use this as my carry around lens and have to say that it is superb. The sharpness of the photos and the IQ cannot be faulted and the IS works extremenly well allowing really good exposure in some low light situations.

My only slight reservation is that on a cropped sensor (I have a 7D) 24mm becomes 38mm. You may not consider this wide enough for your needs.
 
Having used the Canon 24-105 often in this situation I think this lens offers a great range and great quality.

Like what tms789 states regarding the crop factor, bear that in mind.
 
Thank you all for your input.
Unfortunately it does not make the decision any easier.
It would be nice to have loads of money & purchase the Canon 24 - 105mm f4 L, Canon 24 - 70mm f2.8 L , Canon 17 - 40mm f2.8 L so I would have lots of options. :)
Regarding the crop factor, I have a Sigma 10-20mm lens for the landscapes etc. so that should not be a big problem.

I think I will have a look around for a nice second hand Canon 24 - 105mm f4 L as they are good value for money & don't depreciate that much.
 
+1 for the 24-105. Only got mine today with a 5D MkII and I've only taken a handfull of shots, but already I can see its miles ahead of my Sigma 18-125, a Tamron 18-200 or any of the other walkabout lenses I've tried. Well chuffed.
 
Last edited:
chris321 said:
I would say the Tamron 17-50 is one of the best value-for-money lenses available. It's definitely sharper than the Sigma 24-70. The two Canon's you've listed are great lenses, but personally I find 24mm too long on a crop sensor for the shortest end.

The Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS is the best walkabout lens of that length, but whether it's worth the price difference over the Tamron is debatable. It's slightly sharper, and has IS, but is a fair bit more expensive. It's also not an 'L' lens (not that it's any issue at all, just for reference).

Chris
Click to expand...

I would also vote for the Tamron 17-50. I've used it as a walkabout lens for a couple of years. I went full frame yesterday and got a Canon 17-40L. It's too early to comment properly, but I'm hard pressed so far to see any difference in IQ in the few photos I've taken so far.
 
modchild said:
+1 for the 24-105. Only got mine today with am5D MkII and I've only taken a handfull of shots, but already I can see its miles ahead of my Sigma 18-125, a Tamron 18-200 or any of the other walkabout lenses I've tried. Well chuffed.
Click to expand...

It will be a great lens on a 5D but on a 7D I'm not so sure. I had a 7D and 24-105 combination but I was forever having to change lenses for wider shots which became quite frustrating. So I sold the 24-105 and got an EF-S 15-85 and now I'm much happier. :)
 
As a personal note I fail to see how a Canon 24-105mm can be used as an accurate direct comparison to the tamron 17-50mm.
A proper comparison to me would be against the 17-55mm ef-s lens.
Another thing and this is purely an observation, but if you don't understand what makes the Canon seem better because you say your a noob, do you really understand where your tamron is failing, if at all?
Remember the tamron f2. 8 is one of the best bang for Buck lenses you can get in that focal range.
Furthermore it isn't actually a slow to focus lens, the slightly noisier operation of just makes you think that.
I have the said tamron lens and it is sharp as a tack and will always lock on quick.
Maybe you should either try to get on better with the tamron or have it checked for faults before throwing money at another lens.
You also need to ask yourself if an effective minimum range of 38mm is enough as a Walkabout without continually having to change lenses.
 
My 2p worth. I wonder what kind of walking about you do with your camera.

It's a weird length for a crop camera, whenever I had it on I wanted more wide and less zoom. Hardly used it.

Then I bought a 50mm 1.4, again a bit close for a crop camera, but smaller, lighter, good quality pics, it's fun to play with 1.4, if you need a tighter shot but can't get closer then just crop in pp. Has been on my camera since I bought it.

I think that wide angle lenses are useful and so are tele zooms and in the middle I like a prime.

Primes in my opinion are a better lens, but I suppose it depends on what kind of walking about you do with you camera.
 
j3w3ll3r said:
How about the Canon 15-85mm, I have one and love it and I see there's one in the classifieds (nothing to do with me)
Click to expand...

Glad to see you are enjoying it! It is a great lens...
 
:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top