Recommendations for a good 'walkabout' lens for FF Canon

Kell

Kell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,130
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
When I used to have a Sigma 18-250mm lens for my old 600D, it was great for holidays as it was fairly lightweight and had a good range meaning that I wouldn't have to keep swapping it out. the image quality wasn't great however, and I actually preferred my kit lens which was the 18-135 Canon lens.

So when I sold the 600D, I sold it with the Sigma Lens and kept the Canon kit lens.

Over the years, I've invested in more specialist stuff, at the expense of not having a 'one size fits all' lens.

Does such a thing even exist? And if it does, can you get one at a reasonable price/

I currently have an 80D and a 'classic' 5D so have a mix of things I can use on various cameras. Obviously all the lenses fit the 80D, but then things like the 50mm 1.8 become a little too long.

Conversely, the lens I have with the most useful range as mentioned above doesn't fit the 5D.

So, is there a FF equivalent zoom of either the Canon 18-135 or even a third party lens that's worth thinking about?

Just thinking about going away for a family trip and almost dreading the prospect of lugging multiple lenses everywhere.

The 28-300 is way out of my price range. And I've looked at the 35-350 L before, but it's hard to find one to go look at and try out.

Is the answer even a lens - is it maybe an all-in-one camera? Like one of those diddy Sony RX100 things.


Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
For the record, current lenses I have that fit the 5D.

Canon 50mm 1.8 STM
Tamron 24-70 F2.8
Canon 17-40 L F4
Canon 70-200 L i 2.8
Canon 100-400 L i

Plus EF-S lenses
Canon 18-135
Canon 24mm pancake F2.8
Canon 10-22
Sigma 30mm F1.4
 
Last edited:
On the 5D the Canon EF 24-105 f/4 L should be a good option, although it won't give you that much telephoto reach.

You could complement this with the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM II but then you're bringing multiple lenses again.

Why not just take the 80D + 18-135 + Sigma 30 1.4 for low light?
 
maarten.dhaese said:
You could complement this with the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM II but then you're bringing multiple lenses again.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, I did have one of these, but sold it to put towards the 100-400.

maarten.dhaese said:
Why not just take the 80D + 18-135 + Sigma 30 1.4 for low light?
Click to expand...

I probably will take the 80D, I'm just thinking long-term as I started off crop body and bought EF-S lenses, but ultimately still want to move entirely FF so am looking at getting lenses which sort of replace the EF-S ones. Hence my most recent purchase of the 17-40 as it's a broadly similar and relatively affordable FF version of the 10-22 which I love.
 
Last edited:
I’ve got a Sigma 17-70 f4 on my 6D most of the time, and I’m happy with it.
Don’t need faster because of the low iso performance and the in-lens stabilisation, but I carry a 50mm f1.8, a 105mm macro, or something longer or wider, all according what I’m planning to shoot and where I’m going.
 
I think, looking at available options, that a such a lens doesn't really exist. the only ones that do, seem to be sold as introductory lenses. Which means IQ will be poor.

I think I might as well just take my old Lumix as a walkabout. .
 
Yeah, I'm guessing that the more 'professional' the camera, the less likely the need for a one size fits all lens. That's why there are more options at the lower end.

For most pros, they'll take the correct equipment for the job, and most prosumers/keen amateurs will have some sort of specialism so will also know which one/two lenses they want on a trip.
 
Another vote for the Canon 24-105 IS L here; there's a bit of an 'overlap' gap in your current EF fit lens collection and that would plug it. Others might suggest the 24-70 f/2.8 L MkII for it's better image quality, however, on an old 5D I doubt you'll see the benefit and it's about twice the price of the 24-105 L, and there's no image stabilisation on the 24-70 f/2.8 - I know it allows more light in, but not everyone wants the thin depth of field f/2.8 gives on every shot. so there's no real replacement for IS. I'd go for a mintish, used Mk1 24-105 as I don't think the Mk2 merits the additional price in terms of difference in image quality, plus it's slightly bigger and heavier too!

As for rationalising your camera system and going FF, I'd be tempted to keep the 80D for use with your 100-400 and the additional reach a crop sensor camera will bring for wildlife and sports/action type shots. I'd think about selling or trading the rest of the EF-S lenses to fund the purchase of a mintish used 6D Mk1, which has got to be the best bang for buck FF DSLR out there at the moment. This will knock your old 5D Mk1 into a cocked hat in terms of image quality and low light performance. A 5D iv would be a noticeable improvement on the 6D, but it's a lot more money! If you've got any cash left after your clear-out, have a look at the 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, it's a little stonker and a really useful focal length - I often find 50mm is too 'tight' and 35mm is too wide. Plus, like your 24mm pancake, you'll hardly know it's on the camera. You should be able to find a good used 40mm pancake for less than £100.

There's also the old Canon EF 28-135 IS lens, I have two of these that I use on my EOS film cameras but one is definitely sharper than the other! There's also a bit of pincushion and barrel distortion at each end of the zoom range too - but that can be fixed in post processing. In addition to this (slight but noticeable) variability in sharpness, compared to the build-quality of the 24-105 L, this lens feels very plasticky and isn't very smooth in its zooming , plus both my 28-135 lenses have developed a click when zooming (just past the 35mm mark), however, they both still seem to work fine and it's not worth the cost of having them serviced to fix the issue, although whatever is catching in them will probably break one day! So, despite a really useful walk-about zoom range, I can't really recommend the 28-135 IS lens at the price they still sell for, unless you stumble on a really nice one for less than £100 and want to take something of an affordable chance. Hope this is useful.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
Yeah, I'm guessing that the more 'professional' the camera, the less likely the need for a one size fits all lens. That's why there are more options at the lower end.

For most pros, they'll take the correct equipment for the job, and most prosumers/keen amateurs will have some sort of specialism so will also know which one/two lenses they want on a trip.
Click to expand...

Don't worry they do make such lenses for proper pro cameras.

Try this one? https://www.canon.co.uk/for_home/pr...inema/cine_lenses/cn-e30-300mm_t2.95-3.7_l_s/
:)

I hope that answers your dilemma and what happens when sensor size increases.
 
I was looking for the same thing and ended up with the Tamron 28-300. It's fantastic as a travel lens. Relatively small, light, has IS, great IQ & sharpness. I'd happily say it was better than my old 24-105 which was big, heavy and not at all impressive IQ wise.

If you can stand the loss of 4mm at the wide end it's a steal IMO and the 300mm range on FF is very useful. Picked mine up 2nd hand for about £400 IIRC. Fab lens.
 
I have a 24-105, but grew to dislike it: big, heavy and the zoom used to "walk"to the long end when I was walking. I much prefer the 24-70 f/4 L and would heartily recommend it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top