Most versatile L lens under £1000?

onona

onona

Suspended / Banned
Messages
997
Name
Leigh
Edit My Images
Yes
So I've had my sparkly new 7D for a few weeks now and I'm loving it, but I'm starting to itch for some better glass. I'm curious to hear opinions about which lenses under a thousand quid may give me the most bang for my buck. I'm kinda after a walkaround lens, so I've been looking at the 24-105mm (a friend has one, I've tried it and really like it) and the 70-200mm. I see quite a few shorter focal lengths floating around too but am unconvinced by their scope for versatility. Am I being close-minded?

Anyone have any wisdom to share? I don't want to rush off and get something that I may end up regretting.
 
Last edited:
onona said:
So I've had my sparkly new 7D for a few weeks now and I'm loving it, but I'm starting to itch for some better glass. I'm curious to hear opinions about which lenses under a thousand quid may give me the most bang for my buck. I'm kinda after a walkaround lens, so I've been looking at the 24-105mm (a friend has one, I've tried it and really like it) and the 70-200mm. I see quite a few shorter focal lengths floating around too but am unconvinced by their scope for versatility. Am I being close-minded?

Anyone have any wisdom to share? I don't want to rush off and get something that I may end up regretting.
Click to expand...

Yes ;)

EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS by miles. It has very useful wide-angle range, 24-105L doesn't. It runs f/2.8, 24-105L doesn't. It's also (very fractionally) sharper.

It was designed specifically for crop format cameras like the 7D. 24-105L wasn't.

24-105L has a red ring, 17-55 doesn't.
 
Funny you should mention that one, as I put it on my Amazon wish list the other day for further investigation. Is the quality really all that?

Having used a bunch of my friend's L lenses now, I'm just really impressed by the sharpness they achieve. Does this one really compare so favourably?
 
Last edited:
It beats the 24-105L on everything except build quality. Not that there's anything wrong with it at all, as you would expect for the price, but it's not a weather sealed battleship.

Most of all though, it's the most versatile walkabout package by some margin, which is what you asked for.

If you want an L, get an L, but it's just not the best tool for the job.

Edit: or EF-S 15-85. Fantastic range, and also very good, but not quite in the same league. And of course, not f/2.8.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I'll spend some time this weekend reading reviews and looking at shots from that lens. The price is pretty attractive too.

My only concern is the focal length, really. My current walkabout lens is the EF-S 17-85mm 4-5.6 USM IS, and I really like that focal range, which is one of the reasons why I liked the 24-105mm L, as it gives you a fair bit of zoom.

I'm also rather keen on the beautifully sharp 135mm 2L.

Grrrrr, decisions.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Edit: or EF-S 15-85. Fantastic range, and also very good, but not quite in the same league. And of course, not f/2.8.
Click to expand...
It's pretty darned close Richard. We have a 15-85 permanently attached to our 7D(well, that is unless Ms arad85 is wildlifing with the 70-200...). Great range, very sharp, cheaper than 17-55, lighter than 17-55. Better IS system than 17-55 (but obviously, the 17-55 has f2.8). Compare the Canon lenses (inc 17-85) on real world images (not test charts) here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
 
Hard to say what the best walkabout lens is for you unless you specify what you take pictures of?

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is supposed to great on crops (equivalent effective focal range of the 24-70L on full frame), but if you want portraits mostly then I'd suggest something a bit longer like the 24-105L. Much more range, sure you lose f2.8 and wider range but you gain so much more on the longer end which makes portraits easier. When I started out I plumped for the kit lens until I would good enough to need more. It was constantly frustrating that it only went to 55mm, much more so than a lack of IS or not being f2.8 through.
 
what other lens do you have?

Maybe this will help your choice, if you already have a 10-20 UWA maybe a 24-70 or 24-105 would be the good choice.

The 17-55 is rated as one of the best walkabout lens on a crop. I have 17-50 tarmon but find I could do with a little more length at times.

I'm thinking of moving to the 24-70
 
My 70-200 f4 goes perfectly with my 7d :) I highly recommend it.
 
Hi

I took a bag full of gear with me on holiday and to be fair I used two lens one was the 100-400 when I was at the moto GP the other was my 17-55mm it was never off the camera and I never felt it did not do the job, Most of the time I was shooting at the lower end as it was all wide angles stuff.

I looked at other lens in this range but would have always been wondering what if?? so i took the plunge and really pleased I did.
It all depends on what you want to shoot.

spike
 
By all accounts the only reason the 17-55 doesn't have a red ring and an L designation is because you can't use it on a FF camera. Otherwise it really is that good.
 
daugirdas said:
for 1k you should fit in 24-105 + 70-200/4 2nd hand
Click to expand...

:agree: easily

My first DSLR kit was the 30D and the seller of that camera ( a member on here ;)) recommended I make the 24-105 my first choice, that turned out to be very good advice as it was a great walkabout with a very versatile focal range .

It all depends on how wide you want it for landscapes but personally I found it wide enough for most landscapes and still do on the 7D.

So, I would recommend 24-105 initially and if you upgrade to a full frame the 24-105 will sit even better with that whereas 17-55 is an EFS lens only for a crop body.
 
70-200 f/4 IS is a very handy lens and extremely sharp, must admit I use the 17-55mm more though
 
I bought the 17 - 55 and returned it a couple of days later as I just couldnt get on with it. Wasnt wide enough to be a 'wide' lens and wasnt long enough to be a long lens. Ended up with a 24 - 70 on my 7D. I did however LOVE the IS on it, and my copy was tack sharp, which contrasts the (comparative) mush that my 24 - 70 comes out with...

Personally if I had 1000 quid to spend on an L lens I'd either buy a 70 - 200 F4 IS or a 24mm prime second hand. But thats just me.
 
SamP said:
I bought the 17 - 55 and returned it a couple of days later as I just couldnt get on with it. Wasnt wide enough to be a 'wide' lens and wasnt long enough to be a long lens. Ended up with a 24 - 70 on my 7D. I did however LOVE the IS on it, and my copy was tack sharp, which contrasts the (comparative) mush that my 24 - 70 comes out with...

Personally if I had 1000 quid to spend on an L lens I'd either buy a 70 - 200 F4 IS or a 24mm prime second hand. But thats just me.
Click to expand...

Your 24-70 also needs good calibration then
 
Thanks for all the replies. As I like to shoot lots of different stuff, it makes choosing lenses a bit tricky since I like versatility. I'm borrowing a couple of lenses from a friend to take on holiday this weekend, so hopefully I'll return with a clearer idea of what to get.
 
arad85 said:
It's pretty darned close Richard. We have a 15-85 permanently attached to our 7D(well, that is unless Ms arad85 is wildlifing with the 70-200...). Great range, very sharp, cheaper than 17-55, lighter than 17-55. Better IS system than 17-55 (but obviously, the 17-55 has f2.8). Compare the Canon lenses (inc 17-85) on real world images (not test charts) here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx
Click to expand...

Agreed. I am very impressed with mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top