walk-around lens - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

11/30/2005 12:48:18 AM · #3

Tamron SP 28-75mm 2.8 XR Di...fast, sharp as tack and resonably priced...can not beat it.

Prof_Fate

11/30/2005 01:02:28 AM · #4

Depends...I moved from a consumer 28-80 to the Sigma 18-50 2.8 and was using it for my walkaround lens and there is HUGE difference between 18 and 28 in real world use. Especially indoors. I wanted more than the 50 oudoors so i too went looking about a month ago.

I chose the Tamron SP24-135 3.5-5.6. I tried the canon 17-85, a vrey nice lens, but I wanted more than 85mm. The Tamron has great range, extremely sharp, fast focusing - just great. and it does macro, a true bonus for a walkaround lens. The SP is tamron's pro line.

Some sample shots:

KiwiChris

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/30/2005 02:20:03 AM · #5

Every time I see a thread with this title I have an urge to find a walkaround lens..

Finally I found one. :-).

jibbyvonjibb

Canon EOS-20D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/30/2005 09:35:14 PM · #6

ok ok....man I'm having a hard time deciding b/w:

1. Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR MACRO ASPHER f/CANON
(sounds good, but is it kinda weak range on both ends)
2. Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
(heard some good, heard some bad)
3. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
(sounds good, very nice range....but more expensive than others)

so, what do you guys think? I like the 3rd one, but is it really worth the extra $100?

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/30/2005 10:09:11 PM · #7

I read the title of the thread, my first thought was.... short walk.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/01/2005 01:47:01 AM · #8

I have the Tamron 28-75 and find it not wide enough for landscape and buildings on a cropped sensor.

I've had the Canon 28-135IS and wasn't happy with the optics and sold it for the Tamron. It's range is quite good though.

I've read the review of the 17-85 on Photozone, it's sharp but has a lot of barrel distortion at the wide end and has lots of CA. I think the range is nicer as 18mm is wide enough for landscape and buildings while the longer end can let you take portraits as well.

Another option maybe Sigma 18-125, Sigma 18-50, Tamron 17-35 (my favorite walking around lens). Good luck.

Message edited by author 2005-12-01 01:47:39.

henry_buckle

Canon EOS-20D

12/01/2005 01:52:53 AM · #9

Ive been looking for a walkaroud lense as well, and i think ive decided on the the 17-85 IS

Mainly because it goes from 17mm and anything above that is not wide enough for me. It was the first time i used IS and i like it.

PM me if you want some with and without IS pics, from my 2 minute test at the store.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

12/01/2005 01:55:59 AM · #10

Very good review of the 17-85IS here.
//www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1785_456_is/index.htm

Antanas

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

12/01/2005 02:11:37 AM · #11

I have 17-85. It was a natural upgrade of 18-55 kit lens.

No regrets still. IS, perfect range for wide and mid-tele shots, FTM, USM for quiet and quick operation.
Expensive. Having all that is mentioned above for less would be great. As always :) But - you usually get what you are paying for.

Yes, there is visible barrel distortion at wide angle. I fix it with PTlens plugin in Photoshop.
I recommend the lens.

Kavey

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 18-125mm f/3.5-5.6 DC for Canon

12/01/2005 05:23:11 AM · #12

I'm very happy with my Sigma 18-125 lens. Not too large, light weight and I'm happy with the results.

AutumnCat

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/18/2006 12:08:20 PM · #13

I am also starting to consider a walk around lens - for a future purchase.

I love fast lenses for the blurred background effect. For that reason I love my 70-200 2.8.

I would love a wide range for landscape and also a bit of a zoom.

Considering the Canon 24-70...but am wondering if there is a fast lens that has a wider range? I am partial to Canon L - for quality, sharpness etc.

Any recommendations? Is it possible Canon might come out with something similar to the 24-70 - but maybe wider range?

Currently I have the 70-200, 18-55 kit (too slow for what I like to do), and am getting the 50mm 1.8 II shortly.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/18/2006 01:18:37 PM · #14

I'll be conservative for a minute and say, primes are best, even for walking.

As far as zooms are concerned, Canon's EF 24-70L f/2.8 would afford a great range while providing stellar optical quality and speed (for a zoom). Although I don't own one -I use the less expensive EF 17-40L f/4, I have access to a 24-70 when I want it and found that I want it more often than expected.

I find both lenses very useful for street photography, shots most people would consider photo-journalism and casual landscapes (in the wider sense). Discriminating landscape photographers (those who insist on capturing a lot of detail) would, I imagine, use primes. I carry the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for this purpose (as well as for some portraits and street stuff). The 50mm, however, is not a normal lens at all when multiplied by 1.6 (300D/350D, 10D, 20D), even when multiplied by 1.3 (1D Mark II).

I have to admit that being as lazy, unprepared and mildly obsessed with image quality as the next guy, I frequently use the 70-200L f/2.8 (even with a 1.4x attached) as a walk-around lens. The result is that I have myself removed from the subject(s), not only optically but also physically to the point of having lost intimacy with my subjects, thus preventing the kind of photography I admire and am so hungry for.

Message edited by author 2006-02-18 13:20:08.

02/18/2006 03:23:54 PM · #15

the new Sigma 17-70 looks good too.
//www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/17701785

AutumnCat

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/18/2006 03:50:50 PM · #16

Thanks for the responses.

So now I'm wondering - better to have a faster lens with a bit less range (as you can move your body back a bit to get wider or move forward to get closer) rather than a broader focal range and slower apertures.