Walkaround lens

mjolnir

mjolnir

Suspended / Banned
Messages
29
Name
Rob
Edit My Images
Yes
I hope this hasn't come up too often but I was looking for a bit of guidance with regard to choosing a good everyday walk around lens.

At the moment I have a 30D, 18-55, Sigma 70-300, and a 50mm 1.8.

I want a lens I can just attach to the camera and take for a walk. At the moment I usually take the 18-55 kit lens or the 50. Neither have IS which is really what i'd like in a new lens.

I sort of narrowed it down to a few options but i'm totally open to other suggestions if anyone has any.

I've seen the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM which I have heard mixed reviews about. Some say it's a decent lens with great results whilst others have complained about the build quality. They seem to go for about £200ish

The next is the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which apparently is a better constructed lens from what i've read but i'm not certain I want to go down the EF-s route anymore. I'd like to stick with EF if possible for future upgrades. These seem to be around the same price as the 28-135 or perhaps a few £ more

Finally I like the look of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Everything i've read suggests that this is a fantastic lens but is closer to the £700 mark. Three times the price of the others. I've no doubt about it's quality but I worry that it would be pointless for me to go for something as good and expensive as this since I might not be able to use it to it's fullest capabilities.

Any help pushing me in the right direction would be greatly appreciated. I'm quite happy with what i've got but i'd like to get hold of something with IS and USM that would be a notch or two up from the 18-55 kit lens.

Thanks everyone.
 
I swapped inmy 18-135mm for a 17-50 as my walkabout lens simply because the weight and size of the 18-135 was too much for walking about. Consider this when you choose your lens. Walkabout isn't just about getting the best range it's about weight and physical length too
 
I had a 17-85 some years ago, it was useable but nothing special. To be fair it's not a bad lens, it does suffer from distortion at wide angles and it's not that fast, but it get's a worse press than it deserves. You could do worse.

I have the 24-105 (one of my only two zooms), it's not bad at all. It certainly makes a decent "walk around" lens. I've no real complaints about it.

The other option is to consider a prime around the 28 - 35mm range. That's not as daft as it sounds, I often just wander around with a 35mm f/1.4 and it's a very versatile lens indeed. You don't have to go for the L, if you can manage with (say) f/2.8 there's a lot out there at reasonable cost. And the image quality can make some zooms look pretty poor in comparison.

cheers
 
Ill back the Canon 24-105mm up as its a great lens. Havn't owned one but I have used one. Its a great lens, worth the money if your can afford it.
 
Apart from when I'm shooting at a gig, this lens is truly never off my camera. I love it and it's worth every penny. The only thing that would make it better would be if it was f2.8 :eek: For that, I would sell almost every other lens I own. (not my 70-200 f2.8)........but it would probably weigh a ton.
 
24-105L is a great lens on a FF body, but on crop sensor the EF-S 17-55 IS is sharper, faster, and usefully wider. It is just a shame the 17-55 is nowhere near as solid/well built as the 24-105. If you have £700 the 17-55 is the one to get (mine replaced a 24-105).

If you do not have £700, a used 17-85mm offers a lot of flexibility for the money. They are not the sharpest of lenses around the edges, but most of their weaknesses can be corrected in software. The 28-135mm has similar build to the 17-85, and slightly better optices but it will be a little too "long" for a crop sensor.

My personal chocie would be the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC (IS) for about £400 new. I would have gotten one of these if I had not opted for the 17-55mm IS already.
 
Thanks very much for all of the help. I'm still a bit stumped on what to go for at the moment but I feel like I might be better off waiting a bit to get some cash together for the 24-105 L.

I've looked at some of the options and I really like the 17-55 however it's an EF-s and I imagine that at sometime down the line i'll end up with a full frame and a lens that isn't useful anymore.

Bill, I thought about your idea of a prime and i'll have to give it some thought. I was out with my 50mm 1.8 before and something a little wider like that would be nice especially on the crop sensor.

Any other suggestions gratefully received. You've been brilliant. Thanks again.
 
I've had a 24-105 for a couple of months now and absolutely love it.
I was a little worried that I'd miss the 2.8 my Tamron had, but bumping up the ISO isn't a problem on the 40D.

Look at it this way....
True, it costs a fair bit, but you're getting a really good lens that will last years and hold its value very well. The 17-55 was tempting, but like you, I reckon I may go FF in the next few years.
 
I have to throw in the Tamron 18-270, hence the user name... I still say it's a great general purpose lens that is underrated in some circles! Hence the Mick taking at my store :-(
 
The 18-135 IS is a very good walkabout lens, very sharp and has brilliant colour reproduction. Its also very versatile and unless you want a really long zoom, as a walkabout it could stay on the camera pretty much for any shot. Probably one of the best lenses for IQ with such a good range, I've been testing mine solidly since xmas and I'm finding it hard to fault.

The IS, being Canon's newest, is supurb. Rated better than the older 28-135.

Careful where you buy though, prices range from £300 to £550 (Jessops!!)!
 
My 28-135 IS USM is near enough permanently attached.
 
17-55 EF-S for me without question. I personally think that if you are perhaps thinking of going full frame in a few years, you get the best fast lens for a crop and then sell it if you go full frame. It is beyond me why people discount this lens with the full frame argument in a few years, maybe. That sound more like L snobbery to me. Just my opinion of course!
 
^ Thats a £700 lens! But (to throw a spanner in the works!) is it really worth bothering with full frame for the average enthusiast, given the great crop cameras and EFS lenses out there which cover the wider aspects, and still being able to use all the EF lenses? (prepares for flaming!)

The good thing about lenses is they hold their value very well, so a good EFS lens will still hold a lot of value on the 2nd hand market, should the OP ever want to go FF.
 
I realise that this one has a thread of it's own but I just wondered what you thought about the Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM.

It stands around £309 although I didn't think it had been released yet but seems to have been according to the website. It looks to be a fair old prospect although I know I had originally discounted EF-s lenses and this is designed for APS-C sensors I think Jim is right with regard to a decent crop lens holding it's value and if I end up full frame in the future then it shouldn't be too much trouble to move on if it's a decent lens for the cash.

It gives a bit more width at the bottom end overthe 24-105 and although I would imagine the optics won't be up there with the L it is under half the price.
 
mjolnir said:
I realise that this one has a thread of it's own but I just wondered what you thought about the Sigma 17-70mm OS HSM.

It stands around £309 although I didn't think it had been released yet but seems to have been according to the website. It looks to be a fair old prospect although I know I had originally discounted EF-s lenses and this is designed for APS-C sensors I think Jim is right with regard to a decent crop lens holding it's value and if I end up full frame in the future then it shouldn't be too much trouble to move on if it's a decent lens for the cash.

It gives a bit more width at the bottom end overthe 24-105 and although I would imagine the optics won't be up there with the L it is under half the price.
Click to expand...

The Sigma looks to be a very good lens, good thread here comparing it to the Canon 15-85 and the Tamron 17-50. Compares well to the Canon, possibly not quite as sharp but at almost half the price it looks pretty good!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=799955

In relation to crop lenses, you can still use them on a 2nd body if you do go FF and can afford to keep the old kit, if I ever go FF (tbh I'm not planning to, my 50D is beckoning!) I'm going to keep my crop body and Canon 10-22 no matter what as its such a good little lens!!
 
I have a comment about the EF-S thinking.

If you are looking at spending £200 on a lens, there is a good chance should you choose to go full frame in future it would get replaced anyway. For the walkabout lens I would say go with the focal lengths that work now rather than limit yourself to full frame only.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top