Walk about lens?

G

GavSterry

Suspended / Banned
Messages
192
Name
Gavin
Edit My Images
Yes
Can anyone reccommend me a good general walk about lens, not in the position to spend a small fortune so anything abit cheaper would be helpful, Well to be honest anything better than my 18-55 kit lens. Any recommendations would be extremly grateful.

Thanks all
Gav
 
Im sure theirs other that can give you more experienced advice but ive borrowed a Canon 18-135mm IS which i found to have a useful range and they dont cost a massive amount.
 
Cheap and cheerful would be the Tamron 17-50 - This is quite a frequent question on here, so if you do a search you'll probably find a couple of threads already. I've never used the Tamron, I went for the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS at approx £600, but not cheap, so perhaps that is a little on the expensive side.

The reason I say to do a search is that there is a VC and non VC version and I'm not sure which one is best.
 
How much is "a small fortune"?

A few ideas.... (prices from Camera Price Buster)

£99 ... Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS
£159 ... Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM
£229 ... Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
£280 ... Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM
£289 ... Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
£308 ... Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC OS Macro HSM
£344 ... Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II VC
£360 ... Canon EF-S 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 IS
£499 ... Canon EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
£520 ... Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 EX DC OS HSM
£675 ... Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM

By and large, the more you pay, the better lens you'll get. The Canon 17-55 at the bottom of the list delivers superb image quality, but at a price. Personally I'm very impressed by the Canon 15-85, which I think is tons better than the Canon 17-85 I have on my 40D at present, but then so it should be at that price. If you want a super-zoom the Sigma 18-200 OS is good.

Trouble is, it's hard to look down the list and pick a lens that stands out as being significantly better value than the others around it.
 
Thanks all got a good list to look at, and stewart i havent really thought of a budget but i dont feel i want to spend hundreds on a lens until i feel more serious about my photography. Im not in the financial position to unfortunatly. But theres deffinetly a good contenders on there. Been having a look at your site too. May be paying it another visit soon to hire a lens.

Thanks again

Gav
 
AshleyKent said:
what about the 24-105 F4 L lens... such a good walk around lens! IMO
Click to expand...
Not on a 400D. 24mm is far too wide.

EDIT: Of course I meant to say 24mm is not wide enough. Doh!
 
Last edited:
I've got the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 18-135, both good lenses depending on what you want, reach or speed? Image quality is better on the Tamron but it lack reach. IS on the Canon is helpful and I love the extra range it gives. It all depends what you want from a walkabout lens.
 
I have a similar camera to yourself and find the lens I use most is the Sigma 18-200 that covers most of what I want to shoot. It is a lovely easy to use lens and produces reasonable results. I would certainly agree that the 24-105 is too wide on 400D as a walkabout.

What do you want to shoot?
 
TinaC said:
What do you want to shoot?
Click to expand...

That seems to sum it up!

I've had a Tamron 18-270 and it served its purpose admirably.

Then I found myself in Rome last summer and needed something faster so got the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 which I've found to be an excellent alternative - what it lacks in focal length (220mm!), it makes up for in speed :)

Since then I'm being directed towards primes (28, 35, (maybe 50), 90 and a Sigma UWA. I also got a 180 f3.5 on order. Having to change lenses may well be a pain, but should be compensated for in IQ.

It's all about what you mean by "walk about" - until recently, I'd have recommended the 18-270 without hesitation, but now I'm not so sure.
 
TinaC said:
I have a similar camera to yourself and find the lens I use most is the Sigma 18-200 that covers most of what I want to shoot. It is a lovely easy to use lens and produces reasonable results. I would certainly agree that the 24-105 is too wide on 400D as a walkabout.

What do you want to shoot?
Click to expand...

how would it be too wide for the 400d? explination as im still learning...

would appriciate it...
 
I have a 17-55 2.8

Before I bought this, I was asking the same question as you.

I was going to buy a Tamron 17-50 2.8 Non VC which was heavily recommended to me. The image quality looks great on it.

The only reason I didn't buy it was I found a 17-55 for a price too good to miss.

I'd look for the Tamron 17-50.
 
Gavin,

Not knowing what type of subjects you will be shooting makes it more difficult to suggest a lens, but for a very good portrait / general walkabout lens have a look at the:

Canon EF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 II USM

Make sure it is the Mark II USM version - they often pop up for around the £100 mark and if you get a good example it will give excellent results.

Regards Roy
 
Tamron 17-50mm without a doubt, best for that money defo. Ive got the sony version and ive never looked back. Pleasure to use and feels real quality. Check my flickr in my sig for example pics.

Si
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top