more lens questions canon-THE VERDICT IS IN!!!

[Iwant2BAprincess]

ok, so I went back to the drawing boards and have been reading the threads about walk around lenses. Currently my walk around is my kit lens but it isn't quite as versitile as I would like-mainly in the zoom area. I have my beloved 70-300 but that 70 limits it.

I can tell the 17-55 seems to be beloved by many but what makes it so much better than the kit in regards to range or versitility (assuming image quality is great because let face it-no one raves about a lens that is soft on focus and washed out in color;))

Any thoughts on the 17-85 or the 28-135??

as you can see the more I snoop the more questions I come up with-any thought would be appreciated

[Anewman]

ok, so I went back to the drawing boards and have been reading the threads about walk around lenses. Currently my walk around is my kit lens but it isn't quite as versitile as I would like-mainly in the zoom area. I have my beloved 70-300 but that 70 limits it.

I can tell the 17-55 seems to be beloved by many but what makes it so much better than the kit in regards to range or versitility (assuming image quality is great because let face it-no one raves about a lens that is soft on focus and washed out in color;))

Any thoughts on the 17-85 or the 28-135??

as you can see the more I snoop the more questions I come up with-any thought would be appreciated

I prefer the 17-85 range, but the 28-135 used can go for as low as $200 which is good deal.

Really depends on your style of shooting, do you find your lens lacking in the tele area or do you find yourself always backing up?


Fyi my fave walk around lens is tamron 28-75mm, I do find myself backing up to frame a shot often.

[photo_chick]

I can tell the 17-55 seems to be beloved by many but what makes it so much better than the kit in regards to range or versitility (assuming image quality is great because let face it-no one raves about a lens that is soft on focus and washed out in color;))

The big thing with the 17-55 is that it's f/2.8 so it's a good bit faster than the 18-55 kit. And it's a one of the highest quality EF-S lenses out, as well as the most expensive.

[disneyboy2003]

I can tell the 17-55 seems to be beloved by many but what makes it so much better than the kit in regards to range or versitility (assuming image quality is great because let face it-no one raves about a lens that is soft on focus and washed out in color;))


The big thing with the 17-55 is that it's f/2.8 so it's a good bit faster than the 18-55 kit. And it's a one of the highest quality EF-S lenses out, as well as the most expensive.

The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 lens is the lens that's on my camera like 95% of the time. I've had it for about 3 years.

I find it to be very versatile, and I use it in many different situations. The field of view at 17mm is wide enough for me (although on very very rare occasions, I wish I had a wider focal length).

Sometimes, though, if my subject is far far away, I find that 55mm isn't enough "reach". So sometimes, it's a little inconvenient that the zoom only goes up to 55mm. If I know that I'll be shooting something far away, I try to bring a telephoto lens to switch out.

But, as photo_chick mentioned, what really makes this lens shine is the f/2.8 constant aperture. Why? (1) Because its large aperture is great for hand-held low-light / night photography, and (2) the constant maximum aperture means that my aperture won't change if I zoom the lens. Plus, it's got image stabilization.

Also, the quality of this lens is on-par with Canon's L lenses.

There are other similar lenses, such as Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 lens. But I don't know much about them.

Other "walk-around" lenses you might consider are Canon's 18-200mm, Sigma's 18-200mm or 18-250mm, and/or Tamron's 18-270mm lenses. While they're certainly very very convenient because of their 10-15x zooms, I'm not a big fan of the variable aperture and slightly poorer image quality. The variable aperture might not be a big deal if you're only using these lenses during the day. However they're not quite ideal for low-light situations.

Hope that helps.

[SrisonS]

Maybe even take a look at the Canon 18-135mm. It's a good lens, with a versatile zoom range.

[mom2rtk]

ok, so I went back to the drawing boards and have been reading the threads about walk around lenses. Currently my walk around is my kit lens but it isn't quite as versitile as I would like-mainly in the zoom area. I have my beloved 70-300 but that 70 limits it.

I can tell the 17-55 seems to be beloved by many but what makes it so much better than the kit in regards to range or versitility (assuming image quality is great because let face it-no one raves about a lens that is soft on focus and washed out in color;))

Any thoughts on the 17-85 or the 28-135??

as you can see the more I snoop the more questions I come up with-any thought would be appreciated

Hi there! :wave:

Finding the perfect walk-around lens is a study in compromise. There is no perfect answer. It really depends on what you value most. If you're looking for convenience, then one of the all in one's like the Tamron 18-270 variable aperture gets pretty decent reviews.

But generally when you gain that much range, you typically sacrifice some speed and image quality. I have both the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 18-270, but the Tamron has mostly been untouched since I got the Canon. Once I saw what the Canon can do I didn't want to give it up. YES, it's a pain to swap out for a different lens when I want to zoom. But I guess it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make. Some are not.

I also like that the Canon 17-55 is a constant 2.8. That allows me to take indoor photos without a flash. I enjoy that a lot particularly at Disney where I'm in and out of the dark over in the course of the day.

I think the reason there have been so many threads on this is that there is no one perfect answer.

I also researched the Sigma and Tamron competition to that Canon lens. What I found is that the Tamron is generally very well reviewed. But I wanted something with IS (since I have very unsteady hands) and the reviews generally reported that the IS version of the Tamron lost some of the sharpness it was known for.

Good luck and let us know if you decide to get something new!

[mom2rtk]

Maybe even take a look at the Canon 18-135mm. It's a good lens, with a versatile zoom range.

Take a moment to look through Scott's images on Flickr. They will absolutely sell you on this lens. If you click on the "actions" tab above the photo then "view exif data" you can see which lens he used on each photo.

[Iwant2BAprincess]

Maybe even take a look at the Canon 18-135mm. It's a good lens, with a versatile zoom range.

thanks for the recommendation-I keep coming back to this one for the additional reach it has.

[Iwant2BAprincess]

Hi there! :wave:

Finding the perfect walk-around lens is a study in compromise. There is no perfect answer. It really depends on what you value most. If you're looking for convenience, then one of the all in one's like the Tamron 18-270 variable aperture gets pretty decent reviews.

But generally when you gain that much range, you typically sacrifice some speed and image quality. I have both the Canon 17-55 and the Tamron 18-270, but the Tamron has mostly been untouched since I got the Canon. Once I saw what the Canon can do I didn't want to give it up. YES, it's a pain to swap out for a different lens when I want to zoom. But I guess it's a tradeoff I'm willing to make. Some are not.

I also like that the Canon 17-55 is a constant 2.8. That allows me to take indoor photos without a flash. I enjoy that a lot particularly at Disney where I'm in and out of the dark over in the course of the day.

I think the reason there have been so many threads on this is that there is no one perfect answer.

I also researched the Sigma and Tamron competition to that Canon lens. What I found is that the Tamron is generally very well reviewed. But I wanted something with IS (since I have very unsteady hands) and the reviews generally reported that the IS version of the Tamron lost some of the sharpness it was known for.

Good luck and let us know if you decide to get something new!


I am looking seriously at the 18-135. Although the constant 2.8 would be great I am truly missing reach on my walkaround more than anything else but don't want anything huge (have the 70-300 with the IS that has been my baby for years). For me I need it to be able to be used at those multi function kid times-one minute they might be right next to me and the other I may need a little more reach without having to break out the big guns. I will let you know when I find my happy place:yay:

[bob100]

I am looking seriously at the 18-135. Although the constant 2.8 would be great I am truly missing reach on my walkaround more than anything else but don't want anything huge (have the 70-300 with the IS that has been my baby for years). For me I need it to be able to be used at those multi function kid times-one minute they might be right next to me and the other I may need a little more reach without having to break out the big guns. I will let you know when I find my happy place:yay:

Unless you really like that focal range the 18-55IS and 70-300IS have better image resolution than the Canon 18-135,
see

www.photozone.de
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=678&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

The 18-135 is rated one of the lowest in optical quality!

[SrisonS]

Unless you really like that focal range the 18-55IS and 70-300IS have better image resolution than the Canon 18-135,
see

www.photozone.de
or
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=455&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=1&LensComp=678&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=1&APIComp=1

The 18-135 is rated one of the lowest in optical quality!

Flickr also has groups dedicated to specific lenses. Then you can see actual pictures taken with the lens, to get some idea on how they perform. Sure, the test shots of b&w lines can help; but I don't think most people are really focused on every little flaw those tests find. And if really a problem, software can help fix the occasional mistakes. If a lens truly sucks, you'd probably be able to tell right away looking at pictures of normal situations. But if those normal subjects look good enough to you, then hey, consider the lens.

[Iwant2BAprincess]

Flickr also has groups dedicated to specific lenses. Then you can see actual pictures taken with the lens, to get some idea on how they perform. Sure, the test shots of b&w lines can help; but I don't think most people are really focused on every little flaw those tests find. And if really a problem, software can help fix the occasional mistakes. If a lens truly sucks, you'd probably be able to tell right away looking at pictures of normal situations. But if those normal subjects look good enough to you, then hey, consider the lens.

Thanks! That is kind of my feeling as well-I am far from a pro and most people never see the things that bother me about my shots. I think real images are much more truthful to evaluate from-life is blurry sometimes-unlike those white and black grid lines

[VVFF]

Yes, some lenses are sharper than others. However, when viewed realistically most lenses are GOOD enough for most people. People like to compare stats and complain about one lens vs. another...

In reality, it comes down to the artistry of the photographer to make the lens perform lens.

Give me a D3s w/ a 35mm F1.4 lens and I can take a picture that is HORRIBLE. Or I can have a Canon XS with a 18-55mm kit lens and take a great picture. Yes there is a reason for more expensive equipment but good pictures can be taken even with the bargain stuff.

[Wingman]

Have you looked at the Canon 15-85 yet? I keep looking at that lens as it gives you more on the wide end, 85 on the long end and produces excellent images. I go back and forth between wanting that and thinking I will miss the 2.8.

[photo_chick]

Yes, some lenses are sharper than others. However, when viewed realistically most lenses are GOOD enough for most people. People like to compare stats and complain about one lens vs. another...

In reality, it comes down to the artistry of the photographer to make the lens perform lens.

Give me a D3s w/ a 35mm F1.4 lens and I can take a picture that is HORRIBLE. Or I can have a Canon XS with a 18-55mm kit lens and take a great picture. Yes there is a reason for more expensive equipment but good pictures can be taken even with the bargain stuff.

Amen! I totally agree here. Higher end equipment can make things easier, but it's not necessary to get great shots and certainly will not guarantee them.

[cpbjgc]

My walk around lens is a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM. They now have this in an image stabilized version: Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Canon Digital Cameras (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html). I like the speed of this lens and its versatility. I do not usually shoot long and will plan when I need to have my telephoto lens with me. The majority of my pictures you can see in my galleries (link in my signature) are with this lens. It gives a bit of reach over an 18-55 and has pretty good IQ (at least to my eye), at a reasonable price.

One thing to consider, if you have the time an inclination, is to go to a local camera store and ask if you can try lenses you are interested in on your camera body. I did that, snapped a few pics in and around the store, and was able to take the images home to pixel peep myself at my leisure. That was what sold my on the lens I got, the IQ was better than others I was looking at and the coulour rendition was spot on for me.

Just another to throw into the mix :stir: Make sure to report back when you make a choice!

[bob100]

My walk around lens is a Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro HSM. They now have this in an image stabilized version: Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM Lens for Canon Digital Cameras (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/670047-REG/Sigma_668101_17_70mm_F2_8_4_DC_Macro.html). I like the speed of this lens and its versatility. I do not usually shoot long and will plan when I need to have my telephoto lens with me. The majority of my pictures you can see in my galleries (link in my signature) are with this lens. It gives a bit of reach over an 18-55 and has pretty good IQ (at least to my eye), at a reasonable price.

One thing to consider, if you have the time an inclination, is to go to a local camera store and ask if you can try lenses you are interested in on your camera body. I did that, snapped a few pics in and around the store, and was able to take the images home to pixel peep myself at my leisure. That was what sold my on the lens I got, the IQ was better than others I was looking at and the coulour rendition was spot on for me.

Just another to throw into the mix :stir: Make sure to report back when you make a choice!

The newest Sigma 17-50 2.8 EX DC OS HSM is even better, see reviews at www.photozone.de and other places

[Iwant2BAprincess]

Well, after much snooping and all the insight here I made my decision-thank you to everyone who took the time to anwser my questions and provide images to look at.


I now have in my hot little hands a beautiful canon 18-135 is!!!:woohoo::woohoo:

For me, I really just needed better range than my kit-I never had iq issues with it, just not always long enough and although I love my 300 it isn't always quite right either with that 70 starting point.

Now, to find time to go play:yay:

[mom2rtk]

Well, after much snooping and all the insight here I made my decision-thank you to everyone who took the time to anwser my questions and provide images to look at.


I now have in my hot little hands a beautiful canon 18-135 is!!!:woohoo::woohoo:

For me, I really just needed better range than my kit-I never had iq issues with it, just not always long enough and although I love my 300 it isn't always quite right either with that 70 starting point.

Now, to find time to go play:yay:

Yeah! Have fun and be sure to post some pictures back here!

[Iwant2BAprincess]

I can't wait!! I actually have finally figured out how to post pictures (after 2 years here:rolleyes1)

Now, if I can put a few more hours in my day to actually catch up my processing-the good news is I take lots of pictures-the bad news is I stay behind