Walkaround lens...

L

lancsoatcake

Suspended / Banned
Messages
197
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

I have a 7D and am using the 17-85 Walkaround lens at the mo, not massively taken with the results but I did only pay £385 I think.

I want my Walkaround pictures to be sharp as sharp can be and wondered what you would recommend.

Thanks in advance,

Dan
 
just got a 24-105 off here a few days ago and it really is as sharp as sharp can be
 
There's an open ended question..

.. and you're very unlikely to get a useful answer* without providing further information.


*not that the absence of sufficient information about what your style of walkabout is will prevent folk from chipping in with their own preferences ;)
 
The 24-105L is a wonderful lens, though, if you would like something in a similar range, I think the EF-S 15-85mm performs a bit better than the 17-85. And you do get a little wider.
 
I suppose ideally I would like a lens that can perform well in lowlight conditions. But is capable of taking sharp landscapes too. I recently went out walking in the lakes and was disappointed with the sharpness of pictures even stepped down, and fairly fast shutter speed on 100 ISO.

There have been some lovely shots with it, but I just feel that lens isn't doing justice to the body that holds it.

The 24-105 would be ace on FF but for walkabout I question whether or it would sit in the body enough being a 1.6 crop.

Ideally I'd like 10-22 then 24-105....

Hmmm, that's a possibility actually...

:thinking:
 
For me on a crop sensor you need around the 17-18mm mark as the minimum rather than 24mm for a walkabout lens.

The best ef-s lens for low light, great range and sharpness is the Canon 17-55 f/2.8.

This would be my ideal lens but money isn't allowing at this moment.

I had the 15-85 and although it is a great lens I swapped for a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 due to the fixed aperture as I found the 15-85 wasn't as good as I wanted in low light, and didn't give enough background blur for my liking.

I'm very happy with the Tamron but if money wasn't an issue then it would be the Canon 17-55 for me.
 
If low-light shooting is important, how about the 17-55 f/2.8 IS? Used one on a friend's 7D today, I quite liked it.
 
Yeah a possibility...

I like the look of 17-40L for general walkabout....
 
lancsoatcake said:
Yeah a possibility...

I like the look of 17-40L for general walkabout....
Click to expand...

On a crop sensor the 17-55 is a better lens than the 17-40L. It was designed as a general purpose lens for crops rather than an ultra wide on a full frame.
 
Thanks, at some point I will going FF. once I can get my head round why I should...
 
lancsoatcake said:
Thanks, at some point I will going FF. once I can get my head round why I should...
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons why u should and why u shouldn't go FF and the options are for u to weight out. I was in the same dilemma and I went to jessops and cameraworld and had a trying setion with these lenses 17-85 15-85 17-40 17-55 24-105 to find a good replacement for my 18-55 is. 17-85 was optically no better than the 18-55 although much better build etc: now £249 in cameraworld. 15-85 much sharper even better quality a very usefull range but a mediocre apperture for the price. 17-40 nice lens but soft around the edges. 17-55 I did like this one a lot but the price is a bit steep. 24-105 is the one I fell in love with IQ, build, range, fixed apperture. I know a lot of people say it isn't wide enough for a crop but I checked the exif on most of my shots and they seem to be 24 or above so that would not be a problem for me and if I do run into any situations when I need wider than I'll just have to buy a Canon 10-22 or sigma 10-20. Currently I'm saving up for 24-105 f4 is usm L and 50mm f/1.4 and 10-20mm and when I win the lottery a 70-200 f/2.8 is usm L.
 
I use the 15-85 with my 7D and always been happy with the images it produces, IQ wise I can't see any real difference compared to when I use my 100-400L..... OK, not a great comparison but in theory the L lens *should* out perform the 15-85 but IMO you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference.

Unless you know you're going to be regularly needing to shoot in low light and can't use a flash then I'd definitely give it serious consideration :)
 
lancsoatcake said:
The 24-105 would be ace on FF but for walkabout I question whether or it would sit in the body enough being a 1.6 crop.

Ideally I'd like 10-22 then 24-105....

Hmmm, that's a possibility actually...

:thinking:
Click to expand...

I think for people who mix their subjects the original question is trickier than it seems when using a crop sensor. I love my 10-22 and it's on the camera a lot but it doesn't really make the best walkabout as it's just not long enough all the time so generally I have to carry my 24-70 which also doesn't make a great walkabout as it's not always short enough.
Now a 10-135 F2.8 is L that would be ideal.
Also not sure you how long you have had the 7D but after 3/4 months I'm still struggling to get consistently sharp images because of me!
 
hoolio said:
I think for people who mix their subjects the original question is trickier than it seems when using a crop sensor. I love my 10-22 and it's on the camera a lot but it doesn't really make the best walkabout as it's just not long enough all the time so generally I have to carry my 24-70 which also doesn't make a great walkabout as it's not always short enough.
Now a 10-135 F2.8 is L that would be ideal.
Also not sure you how long you have had the 7D but after 3/4 months I'm still struggling to get consistently sharp images because of me!
Click to expand...

In that case the closest thing would be the overpriced 15-85mm
 
Russ77 said:
Why is that lens over priced? I thought it was quite reasonable tbh :thinking:
Click to expand...

@£600 u could get an L lens with a fixed aperture. The price is its biggest downfall same as what it was when 17-85 was first released but now is a very good price £249 at cameraworld. But if u have the cash to blow with no worries than by all means go for it.
 
lucky_13 said:
@£600 u could get an L lens with a fixed aperture. The price is its biggest downfall same as what it was when 17-85 was first released but now is a very good price £249 at cameraworld. But if u have the cash to blow with no worries than by all means go for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think at £560ish that it is too overpriced, and you can pick them up for £500 quite often.

I thought it was a great lens for general stuff with a brilliant range (15-85). Really well built as well.

Am I right in thinking that the L series you mean is the 17-40 f/4? For a walkabout lens on a crop sensor I would prefer the 15-85 for its flexibility (wider and twice the reach).

But that's only my opinion.
 
There are no L lenses IMO as good as the 17-55 and 15-85, as far as an overall package go.

The 15-85 may not be fixed aperture but it's offers a hell of a lot of flexibility and as good as "L" quality optics. The 17-55 is just sublime (though I'd seriously consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well for less ).

Buy a midrange L lens on a crop and the focal range will always be a compromise.
 
Last edited:
If you have a budget you want to keep within check the 17-50 Tamron. Excellent optically and less than half the price of the two Canons you are considering. It is a fairly fast constant 2.8 aperture too.

Also the new Sigma 2.8-4 17-70 seems to be getting decent reviews too.
 
lucky_13 said:
@£600 u could get an L lens with a fixed aperture. The price is its biggest downfall same as what it was when 17-85 was first released but now is a very good price £249 at cameraworld. But if u have the cash to blow with no worries than by all means go for it.
Click to expand...

It can be had for a bit less than £600 now http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1203.html and looking at the Canon line-up I'd say it's well priced.

The next mid range zoom is the Canon 17-40L f4.0 which offers a constant aperture (still isn't fast) but at the expense of focal range, the 17-55L f2.8 is around £200 more but again you sacrifice focal length for the f2.8.

From a personal perspective, I haven't "blown" any money. The lens does exactly what I want it to do, the focal range suits the range of subjects I shoot and the IQ (IMO) is great :cool::D
 
Russ77 said:
It can be had for a bit less than £600 now http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod1203.html and looking at the Canon line-up I'd say it's well priced.

The next mid range zoom is the Canon 17-40L f4.0 which offers a constant aperture (still isn't fast) but at the expense of focal range, the 17-55L f2.8 is around £200 more but again you sacrifice focal length for the f2.8.

From a personal perspective, I haven't "blown" any money. The lens does exactly what I want it to do, the focal range suits the range of subjects I shoot and the IQ (IMO) is great :cool::D
Click to expand...

I'm gald that u like the lens and that would be perfect for me too but I think I will wait untill the price comes down a bit as I couldn't justify paying more than £500. Although a fixed aperture would have been nice..
 
odd jim said:
There are no L lenses IMO as good as the 17-55 and 15-85, as far as an overall package go.

The 15-85 may not be fixed aperture but it's offers a hell of a lot of flexibility and as good as "L" quality optics. The 17-55 is just sublime (though I'd seriously consider the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 as well for less ).

Buy a midrange L lens on a crop and the focal range will always be a compromise.
Click to expand...

Just come back from the shops i had another go @ 17-55 15-85 and 24-105 and just for good measure I tried the 50mm f1.4 and boy that thing is sharp... 17-55 is fast, so fast that I think it was the most impressive one there for speed, bokeh is pretty awesome too but it falls short in focal length for a walk around lens. I've changed my mind in regards to the 24-105 as a walkabout lens, although it is supperb it is not that wide. I do like the 15-85 but I'm still to be convinced to part with £560 £600 for a lens with no fixed aperture. It would be ideal if they'd create a 15-85 is usm f/4 or f/2.8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top