Which lens for general, kids, candids, walkabout etc.

smr

smr

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,047
Name
Joel
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I'm looking for a general walkabout lens and one which will suffice for taking candids, photos of my kids in quick portrait modes (being how quick they move etc.)

Something which will give very nice Bokeh with a shallow depth of field.

Fast and consistent focusing

Generally the lens will be used to take photos of family, day trips / holiday photos of my kids, in the garden, walk about, so a bit of street photography when on holiday etc. that kind of stuff and basically a general purpose lens used both indoor and outdoor.

I'll be upgrading my Camera soon to a Canon 80D. I have a Sigma 105mm 2.8 Macro lens which is good for background blur/bokeh but it's very slow AF wise, and obviously at 100mm it's very limiting.

I'm not sure I want a 70-200mm lens just yet, probably when my boys are playing football and sports etc. that'd be good for but I don't want to invest in the weight and 70mm is a bit too far out really for a general FLR.

So I've been looking at the 24-70 and 24-105.

I'd probably buy used and in as mint condition as possible but need help deciding on the lens first, any recommendations please let me know. Price wise I'd be looking at around £600 budget.
 
Neither of them unless you are looking to upgrade to FF in the near future.
For your purposes on an AP-C format, they are not really wide enough at the short end, and you will probable end up buying a 10-20 (ish) wide angle
Either the 17-55 f2.8 or the 15-85 f3.5-5.6 are more suitable.
Personally the 17-55 but thats me
 
Sigma 24-105 Art f/4 plus a 50mm f/1.8 or Tamron 24-70 f/2.8

Of course try both out ... see how they feel for you on your Canon 80D, etc.

+1 to @troutfisher 's comment though that you'll likely find either lacking at the wide end.
 
Last edited:
For a cropped camera, I'd recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

The 24-105 f/4 is great on full frame (where f/4 produces a nice shallow DOF too) but it's designed as a full frame lens. Not to say it won't produce lovely images on a cropped body but it's far more suited to FF focal lengths for that reason.
 
Last edited:
The tamron 24 70 vc is very good. I have one which I am contemplating selling due to the launch of the sigma art (+ most of my lenses are now sigma art or sport)
 
Last edited:
ChrisHeathcote said:
The tamron 24 70 vc is very good. I have one which I am contemplating selling due to the launch of the sigma art (+ most of my lenses are now sigma art or sport)
Click to expand...

The 17-50 would be better for the OP as it's for a crop.
 
Another vote for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8.
 
smr said:
Thanks guys, just read the digital picture review of that Tamron, it sounds very good.

Just noticed there's a VC version of it as well, worth the extra money?
Click to expand...

That's debatable, some people swear the non VC version is better optically but I doubt there's much in it. The VC would always be useful though.
 
Ok. It i guess with vc i could always turn it off.

Everything looks ok but from sample pics it doesnt look as creamy/blurred as i would prefer. I guess thats because im comparing it to my 100mm sigma which renders creamier bokeh due to zooming in more. More zoom =more bokeh kind of thing.

Just having a look at 1.8 lenses - surprised to see how much the 50mm 1.8 STM Canon is.
 
Last edited:
I've just changed to Fujifilm - got a 35mm WR as a walk around... 50mm equivalent is longer than I'm used to so will be interesting to see how it goes...
 
Should have said I was used to using the x100t - which is 23mm, 35 equivalent
 
smr said:
Ok. It i guess with vc i could always turn it off.

Everything looks ok but from sample pics it doesnt look as creamy/blurred as i would prefer. I guess thats because im comparing it to my 100mm sigma which renders creamier bokeh due to zooming in more. More zoom =more bokeh kind of thing.

Just having a look at 1.8 lenses - surprised to see how much the 50mm 1.8 STM Canon is.
Click to expand...

The STM Canon is a bargain!
 
smr said:
Ok. It i guess with vc i could always turn it off.

Everything looks ok but from sample pics it doesnt look as creamy/blurred as i would prefer. I guess thats because im comparing it to my 100mm sigma which renders creamier bokeh due to zooming in more. More zoom =more bokeh kind of thing.

Just having a look at 1.8 lenses - surprised to see how much the 50mm 1.8 STM Canon is.
Click to expand...

The 50mm STM is pretty amazing considering the price. I got one a few months ago and instantly feel in love with it. I love it on my 5Dmkiii, and its great on my 80D although i prefer something slightly wider as a general purpose prime. STM isnt great at keeping focus on fast moving subjects liek kids runnig around, although it does its best.

I had the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 years ago, and replaced it with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. The Tamron could easily keep up with the IQ of the Canon, but i find only Canon lenses can really keep up with AI servo. You might find its quick enough though.
I'd definitely get the VC version if you are thinking of this route. For what its worth ive had a fantastic copy of the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, and 3 poor copies, including one a few months ago on my 80D. Make sure you can return it if you have issues.

I agree with the others, that the L lenses arent ideal for a crop, unless you need a spacial focal length. Mainly the wide end can be a bit tight. I know you want narrow DOF but ive been very happy with a 18-135 as a general walkabout/days out lens, covering such a large focal range means you wont be caught out with lens changes etc, and have your primes ready for the portrait stuff. At 135mm f/5.6 you can still get a good narrow DOF if you are careful, although its nowhere near what a decent prime can do IMO.
 
It sounds as though you're kind of wanting a lens that doesn't truly exist, ie a general lens that also gives really shallow DOF and nice bokeh. The obvious lens would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but you've already said that it doesn't give the bokeh you want. The only way you're going to get shallower DOF is with a prime. Another option is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, but with it only being 35mm at the long end (56mm eq) it's not going to give you as shallow DOF as the 105mm sigma.
 
Perhaps a little left field ... but what about the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8? For me it wouldn't offer enough at the wide end but perhaps for what you want?

Or would this be a opportunity to upgrade to FF and then the 24-70?
 
Last edited:
Given what you want it for I would go with a prime lens, this will give you the shallow DOF that you are after. Also what I have found from experience is that with a zoom for a general lens, by the time you get the framing you want through playing with the zoom, you've missed the shot (especially where kids and street candies are involved). I found most shots were at either the short or long end with very little in between.

As to focal length every bodies style is different so what is right for one person wont suit everyone, try putting your kit lens at the required length and try a few test shots. Personally I found 50mm on a crop sensor too long especially for indoors, its ok for head and shoulders but other than that. I don't think I ever used mine. 35mm on a crop would be better or better still maybe 24mm. Ive been using a Sigma 35mm Art lens on a FF and find it perfect.

Finally, to throw a curve ball in. If I was in your position, ie, looking to change lens and camera without already being heavily invested in one system. I would go FF and probably something like the Sony A7. You get the benefit of FF which gives shallower DOF (blurred backgrounds) as in reality even f/2.8 on a crop will have a similar look as f/4 on FF. The body is smaller and easier to carry around. You can also use Canon lenses on the Sony via an adaptor so you would still be able to use your Macro lens
 
ChrisHeathcote said:
Given what you want it for I would go with a prime lens, this will give you the shallow DOF that you are after. Also what I have found from experience is that with a zoom for a general lens, by the time you get the framing you want through playing with the zoom, you've missed the shot (especially where kids and street candies are involved). I found most shots were at either the short or long end with very little in between.

As to focal length every bodies style is different so what is right for one person wont suit everyone, try putting your kit lens at the required length and try a few test shots. Personally I found 50mm on a crop sensor too long especially for indoors, its ok for head and shoulders but other than that. I don't think I ever used mine. 35mm on a crop would be better or better still maybe 24mm. Ive been using a Sigma 35mm Art lens on a FF and find it perfect.

Finally, to throw a curve ball in. If I was in your position, ie, looking to change lens and camera without already being heavily invested in one system. I would go FF and probably something like the Sony A7. You get the benefit of FF which gives shallower DOF (blurred backgrounds) as in reality even f/2.8 on a crop will have a similar look as f/4 on FF. The body is smaller and easier to carry around. You can also use Canon lenses on the Sony via an adaptor so you would still be able to use your Macro lens
Click to expand...

Thanks but I photograph a variety of subjects - wildlife, sports, landscape, a tiny bit of Moon shots etc. so the 80D is a perfect Camera for me with the extra crop reach etc. I'd love a FF for the shallow DOF and landscapes but I can't have both so the 80D is more suited to my photography. I've got the 18-55 STM, and 55-250 STM lenses as well.
 
snerkler said:
It sounds as though you're kind of wanting a lens that doesn't truly exist, ie a general lens that also gives really shallow DOF and nice bokeh. The obvious lens would be the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 but you've already said that it doesn't give the bokeh you want. The only way you're going to get shallower DOF is with a prime. Another option is the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, but with it only being 35mm at the long end (56mm eq) it's not going to give you as shallow DOF as the 105mm sigma.
Click to expand...

I might have jumped the gun a bit on the Tamron bokeh, I've since seen some samples which have pleasing results for that. I think the 17-50 range at 2.8 is probably the way to go, the Sigma seems to be sharper but I think at the moment from what I've researched the Sigma's focusing is more hit and miss.
 
smr said:
Thanks but I photograph a variety of subjects - wildlife, sports, landscape, a tiny bit of Moon shots etc. so the 80D is a perfect Camera for me with the extra crop reach etc. I'd love a FF for the shallow DOF and landscapes but I can't have both so the 80D is more suited to my photography. I've got the 18-55 STM, and 55-250 STM lenses as well.
Click to expand...

No problems, didn't know about the wildlife stuff. In which case my advice on primes still stands, based on a crop sensor, I would go for 24 or 35mm (38 & 56mm - FF equivalent), I find 35mm to be a great walkabout length. You still have the 18-55 for this times when you need anything wider or longer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top