| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2005 03:20:10 PM · #1 |
What's the best walkaround lens, in your opinion? How about best for the price?
Here̢۪s a list of the Canon lenses that I would find suitable for a walk-around and my comments on each.
16-35 F2.8L USM
Pros: Wide, fast, 2.25x range, L.
Cons: Not long enough, I̢۪ve heard qualms about the image quality. Expensive.
$1350
17-40 F4L USM
Pros: Wide, 2.35x range, L, affordable.
Cons: Not as fast as others.
$670
17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM
Pros: Most useful range for a walk around—5x, Image Stabilizer.
Cons: Not as fast (though IS should help), image quality and construction are questionable.
$630
18-55 F3.5-5.6
Pros: Wide, 3x range, cheap and light.
Cons: No USM, not so fast, cheap construction, not too sharp.
$150
24-70 F2.8L USM
Pros: Wide and long enough for most applications—2.9x range, fast, L.
Cons: Expensive.
$1120
28-300 F3.5-5.6L IS USM
Pros: Incredible range—10.7x, image stabilizer, L.
Cons: Heavy, expensive, questionable image quality.
$2100
70-200 F2.8L IS USM
Pros: 2.8x range, hand-holdable telephoto, fast.
Cons: No wide angle. Expensive.
$1650
24 or 35 F1.4L USM
Pros: Extremely fast, useable focal length for a 1.6x sensor. L.
Cons: No zoom, expensive.
$1130
50 F1.4 USM
Pros: Extremely fast. Better construction and optics than 50 F1.8. Affordable.
Cons: No zoom.
$320
50 F1.8
Pros: Fast, sharp, very cheap, small and light.
Cons: Cheap construction, no zoom.
$70
85 F1.2L USM
Pros: Fastest lens. L.
Cons: Slow AF, expensive, no zoom.
$1500
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:35:58 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
What's the best walkaround lens, in your opinion? How about best for the price? |
I've never walked around with just one lens. Is this really possible?
All jokes aside, just going by focal length and comfort, I'd think the following.
24-70 F2.8L USM
50 F1.4 USM
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:39:33 PM · #3 |
You left off the venerable 28-135 IS USM F4-5.6. At ~$400 it's a good buy.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:40:07 PM · #4 |
If I had my choice of any of those for a walk around lens...
24-70 F2.8L USM for most normal walk around stuff
70-200 F2.8L IS USM for shooting candids
Best bang for the buck:
50 F1.8
Granted its not the best lens on the list for sure but for $70US ..... |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:41:25 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
85 F1.2L USM
Pros: Fastest lens. L.
Cons: Slow AF, expensive, no zoom.
$1500 |
This is my favorite. It stays on my camera 90% of the time. I find it better suited to my full frame 1Ds then to my 300D but I use it on the Rebel too when my 1Ds is off on one of it's long vacations to repair land in NJ.
One drawback with this lens on the Rebel body is that it weighs at least twice as much as the body does. It seems a better match for the 1Ds.
The AF speed is not a noticable problem. There is little hunt and the AF while not as fast as the 50mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.4 is probably faster then most of the zooms you have mentioned with the exception of the 16-35 2.8L.
My favorite choice for the a versitile walk around lens to pair with the 300D would be the 50 F1.4 USM. The AF is definatly faster then any of the zooms mentioned, it is not over priced, and it will allow you get the images in low light that would ultimatly be lost with any of the zooms.
PS: Few people ever take advantage of the full zoom range of their zoom lens. Their is a tendency with most photographers to shoot at one end or the other.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:48:45 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by lenkphotos:
You left off the venerable 28-135 IS USM F4-5.6. At ~$400 it's a good buy. |
The 17-85 is the same, but made for 1.6x sensors. Good price though on the 28-135. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:51:11 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
85 F1.2L USM
Pros: Fastest lens. L.
Cons: Slow AF, expensive, no zoom.
$1500 |
This is my favorite. It stays on my camera 90% of the time. I find it better suited to my full frame 1Ds then to my 300D but I use it on the Rebel too when my 1Ds is off on one of it's long vacations to repair land in NJ.
One drawback with this lens on the Rebel body is that it weighs at least twice as much as the body does. It seems a better match for the 1Ds.
The AF speed is not a noticable problem. There is little hunt and the AF while not as fast as the 50mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.4 is probably faster then most of the zooms you have mentioned with the exception of the 16-35 2.8L.
My favorite choice for the a versitile walk around lens to pair with the 300D would be the 50 F1.4 USM. The AF is definatly faster then any of the zooms mentioned, it is not over priced, and it will allow you get the images in low light that would ultimatly be lost with any of the zooms.
PS: Few people ever take advantage of the full zoom range of their zoom lens. Their is a tendency with most photographers to shoot at one end or the other. |
It does sound like an awesome lens, but an 85mm prime wouldn't be useful for most situations unless you were 10-20 feet back.
Edit: Why are there no F1 lenses? At a shorter focal length, it doesn't seem unrealistic, though after about 35, prices would become ridiculous.
I think an 18mm F1L USM would cost maybe $1500 or so...
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 16:13:29. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 03:56:26 PM · #8 |
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:00:34 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
I don't know much about 3rd part lenses. That's a good range and good price. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:01:23 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
I've been eyeing that lens for a few weeks. nshapiro, do you have it? What do you think of it? How does it compare sharpness-wise to, say, the Canon 50mm 1.8? If it performs well optically, this is indeed a killer walk-around focal range for 1.6 crop factor cameras. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:04:41 PM · #11 |
| My favorite lens isn't on your list... the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di. It's fast, sharp and offers VERY high image quality for $369. My only minor complaint is that the zoom ring rotates in the opposite direction. Very tough to beat this lens for even twice the price. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:06:17 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
I've been eyeing that lens for a few weeks. nshapiro, do you have it? What do you think of it? How does it compare sharpness-wise to, say, the Canon 50mm 1.8? If it performs well optically, this is indeed a killer walk-around focal range for 1.6 crop factor cameras. |
No zoom with that range and price can achieve sharpness like the 50 F1.8. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:06:59 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
I've been eyeing that lens for a few weeks. nshapiro, do you have it? What do you think of it? How does it compare sharpness-wise to, say, the Canon 50mm 1.8? If it performs well optically, this is indeed a killer walk-around focal range for 1.6 crop factor cameras. |
Yes, I have it. It's light, and as sharp as my other Canon Lenses, including my 70-200/F4L, at least in general use. That means either it's great or my others are bad samples. Colors are good.
I've been running tests to compare it to my 10-22mm. I can run some against the 50. I'm very happy with it in general use, almost to the point that I wish I didn't spend the money on my 70-200 and 10-22. I like those, but I'd be happier carrying around only one lens.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:09:13 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
My favorite lens isn't on your list... the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di. It's fast, sharp and offers VERY high image quality for $369. My only minor complaint is that the zoom ring rotates in the opposite direction. Very tough to beat this lens for even twice the price. |
It sounds good, but I would miss the widest 10mm so much! On a film camera, I can imagine it would be excellent. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:09:42 PM · #15 |
This is a great thread, with a very thorough original post...thank you, Plexxoid.
I hope people keep posting there preferences as all I have is my digital rebel's kit lens right now...That sigma looks tasty, nshapiro...
Anyone else have anything to add about that lens?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:12:24 PM · #16 |
Here's a good review of the Tamron. One surprise worth noting is that this lens is even sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8 at the same zoom.
FWIW- the Sigma 18-125 got a decent (though not great) review in this month's Popular Photography.
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 16:24:04. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:13:43 PM · #17 |
| I bough the 24-70 2.8 lense a couple weeks ago it hasent come off of my camera yet , a little pricey , but well worth it |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:16:31 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
85 F1.2L USM
Pros: Fastest lens. L.
Cons: Slow AF, expensive, no zoom.
$1500 |
This is my favorite. |
It does sound like an awesome lens, but an 85mm prime wouldn't be useful for most situations unless you were 10-20 feet back.
Edit: Why are there no F1 lenses? At a shorter focal length, it doesn't seem unrealistic, though after about 35, prices would become ridiculous.
I think a 28mm F1L USM would cost maybe $3000 or so... |
It is an awesome lens, but most of the head shot portrait work I do, even on the Rebel with the crop factor consderation, is within 3 to 5 feet of my subject. You are right about the distance on a standing head to toe shot.
As far as the f/1 lens Canon did make a MF 50mm f/1 years ago, but it was not as sharp as the 1.4 and size and price considerations limited how many were ever sold. That was a big chunk of glass.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:20:04 PM · #19 |
3 feet with an 85mm lens on the Rebel wouldn't even get eyes to chin, would it?
And about the F1 glass, the shorter the focal lenght, the smaller the glass needs to be, true? The 50mm F1 is huge. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:35:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by bledford:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The most useful is the Sigma 18-125mm F3.5/5.6 for $250.
My Canonn lenses can't justify their cost in comparison, except maybe the 50/F1.8. |
I've been eyeing that lens for a few weeks. nshapiro, do you have it? What do you think of it? How does it compare sharpness-wise to, say, the Canon 50mm 1.8? If it performs well optically, this is indeed a killer walk-around focal range for 1.6 crop factor cameras. |
Yes, I have it. It's light, and as sharp as my other Canon Lenses, including my 70-200/F4L, at least in general use. That means either it's great or my others are bad samples. Colors are good.
I've been running tests to compare it to my 10-22mm. I can run some against the 50. I'm very happy with it in general use, almost to the point that I wish I didn't spend the money on my 70-200 and 10-22. I like those, but I'd be happier carrying around only one lens. |
The current issue of Popular Photography also likes the Sigma 18-125. I'm thinking of getting it, after using Canon's 28-105 for eight years. That was a great walk-around lens for 35mm film bodies, but I miss the wide angles now that it's on a 10D.
Any thoughts on the Sigma 24- 135?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:38:46 PM · #21 |
My walkaround lens is my 17-40 F4L.
It's a very good lens and suits me just fine, since I do a lot of landscapes. I have 3 main complaints against it:
#1: The lens hood is big, tricky to lock on, and awkward to store.
#2: With the 1.6 crop factor the 17mm on the short end is not all that wide.
#3: The F4 is a bit of a handicap in low-light situations.
I have other lenses for longer reach, so the short 40mm does not bother me, I usually carry 100/2.8 or 75-300 along for that.
The pros:
The AF is quick, it has a 77mm front end, which is common so filters are easy to find. For some strange reason it only comes with seal (rubber gasket) on the camera end and not weatherproof on the more vulnerble front end.
This lens is sharp and easy to use. I've only got flare a handful of times and only when shooting almost into the sun/strong light. (of course the 1.6 crop factor also cures all kinds of problems that might come up on a full frame, such as vignetting, distortion, CA etc)
price: for L and quality good buy.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:38:48 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
3 feet with an 85mm lens on the Rebel wouldn't even get eyes to chin, would it?
And about the F1 glass, the shorter the focal lenght, the smaller the glass needs to be, true? The 50mm F1 is huge. |
At 3 feet I can get a tight cropped head shot from the chin to the forehead (depending on the size of the head of course) with the lens mounted on the Rebel. On the 1Ds I can comfortably get a full head shot, neck and hair included.
As far as the 50mm f/1, I was wrong, Canon does still make them.
It has a 72mm front element which is close in size to the front element on a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. So yes, it is a chunk of glass. And the price? $2350 US.
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 16:39:47.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:48:32 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
What's the best walkaround lens, in your opinion? How about best for the price?
Here̢۪s a list of the Canon lenses that I would find suitable for a walk-around and my comments on each.
17-85 F4-5.6 IS USM
Pros: Most useful range for a walk around—5x, Image Stabilizer.
Cons: Not as fast (though IS should help), image quality and construction are questionable.
$630
18-55 F3.5-5.6
Pros: Wide, 3x range, cheap and light.
Cons: No USM, not so fast, cheap construction, not too sharp.
$150
|
Got the 18-55 with my 20D but never had it on the camera. I bought the 17-85 and have been very pleased with it overall.I use it for 90% of my work.
Out of curiosity, I put my 18-55 on last week and tested it with the 17-85 ...both at their widest setting.
18-55
17-85
The 17-85 showed a greater resolution and contrast especially at the edges..the results were similar at the other end of the scale.
At 35-40mm and f7 there was virtually no difference between them.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:51:03 PM · #24 |
Here's a sample from my informal tests last night. These are 100% crop, converted from CRW with no processing using Thumbsplus (which uses DCRAW). Converted to 8 bit during save to JPEG.
I was on shutter priority, and I was actually testing something else when I did the Canon 10-22, but then I popped in the Sigma to compare and shot as close to the original parameters as possible. (I missed the focal length by 1 mm).
 
This is a center crop, I was focused in both cases on the top petals of the front yellow flower. I don't recall why the Canon shot is slightly underexposed.
(Actually, the purpose of my tests was actually to see why my Camera seems to have so much noise at ISO 400 and higher, so my real goal was to see if shooting JPG ended up with less noise due to internal camera processing than RAW. The answer is no, they are both noisy, even on a CMOS camera.)
(But these were both ISO 100)
Question: Maybe I got a bad EFS 10-22mm Canon. Does this look abnormally bad to anyone who has this lens?
Message edited by author 2005-01-24 16:54:35. |
|
|
|
01/24/2005 04:54:57 PM · #25 |
In my opinion the most useable focal length and aperture + quality is the 24-70 f2.8. There are so many situations where you need to switch fast between these kind of zoom ranges. It gives huge flexibility. It would even be better if it were 17-70 f2.8. I think that you are better off with this useable midrange than the limited wide range of a 16-35 or 17-40.
The 24-70 is also one of the best Canon lenses available and it is fast in every aspect and sharp wide-open. Less to no distortion, so horizons will look straight instead of curved and stuff like that.
When it comes to primes. On the APS-C sensor the 50mm is too narrow. A 28 or 35mm comes closer to a 50mm on a 35mm film camera. Same field of view as your eyes. Sure the 50mm f1.8 from all brands have bang for the buck, but used on APS-C their useability is limited. Very good for portraits.
If you want to save a buck I'd say the EF-S IS lens is the best choice, the IS can compensate for its slowness. But the downsides is that at the tele end it is very slow. Doesn't help AF either. When you need to stop down to get some sharpness it becomes a lot less fun.
|
|
