Canon Experts-Walk Around Canon L Lens-Help me choose

[WilsonFlyer]

I think I'm ready to make the plunge and finally buy an L (or better quality glass, I guess, is more proper) lens.

I'd like my first to be a nice walk-around lens. I have to confess, because this is important, most of my use will be at WDW. Probably 60-70%. I think that's important because the dark rides will bring the max aperture into play and the zoom is important too.

Given the fact that my next purchase will more than likely be the 10-22 L wide angle, which of these would you choose and why? There's also the 70-200 L in my future but it's a ways off so don't let that one skew your decision too much. I know there's some overlap with the first one once I have that one but it's going to take the penny bank a while to absorb all this. LOL

EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM

or the famous

EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (I know this is not an L lens but many say it would be if it were full frame and not "S" since it's so good.)

MAYBE EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM (I know this is a non-L class)

Let's assume for sake of this discussion that full frame is off the table for the time being. Not that it matters for the first two, but would anyone recommend the EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM to save some $$ knowing full frame was off the table?

I have the nifty fifty, the kit zoom (18-55) and the standard 55-250 zoom, if that factors into your choice.

Another thing that's probably important is the fact that 90% of the time, I put a lens on my T2i and go to the parks or visit the resorts. I don't generally take my bag of toys with me. I simply take a small bag to protect the camera and what's currently mounted on it. What I'm saying is, what I walk out the door with, is what I'm "stuck" with until I return to the room. I want this lens to be that lens.

Thanks for any input you may be willing to provide.

 

[JimbobJimbo]

Let me start out with my progression of lenses in that range:
-Kit Lens
-Tamron 17-50 f2.8(sold it)
-Canon 17-55 f2.8IS(sold it)
-Canon 24-105 f4IS(sold it)
-Canon 15-85 IS(gonna sell it)
-Just bought another Canon 17-55 f2.8IS

Now that I got that out of the way, let me explain what I've learned about the lenses you mentioned. I really liked the 17-55 2.8 IS, but wanted a more all-round lens so I bought the 24-105. It was a great lens, but I found that eventhough I have the Tokina 11-16 on the wide end, there was just to much overlap with my 70-200. With the
15-85, perhaps I just have a bad copy, but there is a good bit of distortion and vignetting and more so I just miss having a constant 2.8. So I'm going back to the 17-55 2.8 IS.

But from what you have said. The 24-105 may be right for you, since you say you only carry one lens when you go out. You will be covered on the wide end with the 10-22. But if you do get a 70-200 in the future there will be a lot of overlap on the long end.

Just some thoughts to consider.

 

[okwoodsmith]

One thing to consider is what your future camera might be. Once you invest in quality glass, you'll find that you switch out cameras much more often than lenses. If you end up with a full-frame camera (like a 5D) then all your ef-s lenses would have to be replaced. I know this from experience. I had a 7D with the 10-22 and the 17-55 which had to depart when I upgraded to the 5D. The EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM is going to be cheaper for you but if you're really looking for better glass don't consider it.

Having said that, however, if you plan on sticking with a crop-camera, then the 10-22 and 17-55 should definitely be in your arsenal. The 17-55 is as sharp as L glass and the zoom range is perfect for 90% of walk around requirements.

If you do think you might get a full-frame at some point, the 24-105L and the 24-70L are both excellent lenses. The 24-70 is a bit sharper, and you get the extra stop for low light. The 24-105, however, has the IS and is a lighter, less bulky lens to carry around (not to mention the extra focal range). I have them both and find myself using the 24-105 most of the time.

If you want the best performance to dollar you should consider the Tamron 28-75. The copy I had was as sharp as my L glass and you can get for about 1/3 of the cost. That is the one lens I find myself most recommending for people who are wanting to get a higher quality image with a DSLR.

Good luck with your decision. Picking a great lens is a fun process.

 

[jimim]

I have the 17-55. I love it. I t is my everyday lens. Very sharp as others have said and it always performs well. I use it on a 7d.

My wife has a t2i. I have put it on her camera and it made it very very front heavy. The lens is very heavy for the size of it. It makes my 7d pretty heavy also but at least the camera is balanced I feel.

That is the one thing u might have to consider. Have u had this lens on your camera?

I considered the 28mm L lens but cause of the crop factor I passed for now. Right now I'm not looking at full frame so my choice for my everyday lens made sense. I really loved using it in the park. I carried it in a domke shoulder bag or my wife's 3 million dollar crumpler bag. This bag was perfect for the 7d and the lens.

All my other lens purchases have been non ef-s lens with the thought of full frame down the road. My ef-s lens would get passed down to my wife or maybe kid by then. . .who knows.

I don't know if that helps. I know u aren't thinking full frame right now but oh man what if in the future. all that cash just sitting! I'm sorry if that made u more confused.

Have u looked into the new 70-300 L? I don't think it is out yet but it is a nice looking lens if u don't need the speed of 2.8 for the price.

jim

 

[mom2rtk]

Another vote for the Canon 17-55.

You say you'll be using what you buy mostly at Disney, so you're going to want something fairly wide available to you.

And honestly, I just love mine so much I rarely use anything else. I occasionally want something a little wider, or a little longer, but it's such a small part of the time it's almost pointless. If I have to stick to one, then this is it. And I have the Tamron 18-270, so I could have it all in one. I probably never should have picked up the Caonon 17-55. The Tamron probably would have been just fine if I had never picked up the Canon.......

 

[boBQuincy]

I carry a 24-105, it is very good but not very wide on a 1.6x camera. I want a 17-55 but the rumors are that it will soon be upgraded to a 16-60 so I will wait a while. Canon's 17-85 has never tested well and may have set a modern record for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion.

Actually 18-55 is a good range for a single walk-around lens so 17-55 (if you want the wide aperture) or 15-85 (for more range) are going to be good too.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

This is really helpful, guys. Thank you so much for taking the time! I know you're all busy.

 

[WilsonFlyer]

I carry a 24-105, it is very good but not very wide on a 1.6x camera. I want a 17-55 but the rumors are that it will soon be upgraded to a 16-60 so I will wait a while. Canon's 17-85 has never tested well and may have set a modern record for chromatic aberration and barrel distortion.

Actually 18-55 is a good range for a single walk-around lens so 17-55 (if you want the wide aperture) or 15-85 (for more range) are going to be good too.

I really like the range on the 15-85, but 3.5-5.6? Would I not be leaving a lot of light gathering on the table with that guy given all the inside stuff at WDW? That's the primary reason it wasn't included in my original list. I'm an amatuer astronomer too with some big scopes so I somewhat understand and appreciate the importance of light gathering. Maybe too much!

Isn't it also pretty much my kit lens, albeit maybe a little better glass, with just a little more range on the short end and certainly a good bit more on the long? Am I missing something very important here? I guess if it was 2.8 across, costs $800, and weighed 10 oz., it would be a perfect lens. LOL

Thanks!

 

[boBQuincy]

For the inside stuff we generally use the wide end of the range which is at f/3.5, not far from f/2.8. This is not your kit lens: in sharpness; focusing speed; image quality; and price! But if it is aperture you are after then the 17-55 is the obvious choice.

I really like the range on the 15-85, but 3.5-5.6? Would I not be leaving a lot of light gathering on the table with that guy given all the inside stuff at WDW? That's the primary reason it wasn't included in my original list. I'm an amatuer astronomer too with some big scopes so I somewhat understand and appreciate the importance of light gathering. Maybe too much!

Isn't it also pretty much my kit lens, albeit maybe a little better glass, with just a little more range on the short end and certainly a good bit more on the long? Am I missing something very important here? I guess if it was 2.8 across, costs $800, and weighed 10 oz., it would be a perfect lens. LOL

Thanks!

 

[WilsonFlyer]

Thanks Bob. I'm really starting to get intrigued by that lens and it wasn't even on my original short list! Maybe I could just buy that one and kill two birds with one stone because I wouldn't necessarily have to have the 10-22 L right now, right? Assuming that being the case, couple this one with the 70-200 L later on and that might be just the ticket.

I guess the IS buys me some space on my shutter speeds for lower light situations, right? That's gotta count for something.

Thoughts?

 

[frzndaqiri]

Gotta jump in and say I've got the EF-S 17-55 as well and adore it.

I rented the 10-22 and had more fun on this last trip than I expected with it - and might add it to my permanent bag in the future.

My current gear -
30D
EF-S 60mm macro f/2.8
EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8
EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (the "upgraded" kit lens)
EF 85 f/1.8 USM
EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS

I'm looking to save for the 7D at which point the 30D will be backup.

I originally got my camera with the 17-85 and while a great trainer lens and better than the default kit, it can't hold anything to the 17-55. Even losing the bit of reach I am absolutely thrilled with it.

 

[Code]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

 

[bob100]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

I think for the money the Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a better value but the new Sigma 17-50 EX DC OS HSM looks good

 

[jimim]

I don't have experience specifically with the Canon 17-55/2.8 (heard nothing but glowing reviews) but I have a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and love the range (I tend to favor wide) and constant 2.8 aperture.

I have the Tamron also along with the canon and I would say the canon is more sharp. THat is just my opinion. I got the tamron first and when i moved up to a new camera i purchased the canon cause the old camera was getting handed down to my mom and wanted her to have a lens already.

 

[bob100]

I have the Tamron also along with the canon and I would say the canon is more sharp. THat is just my opinion. I got the tamron first and when i moved up to a new camera i purchased the canon cause the old camera was getting handed down to my mom and wanted her to have a lens already.

The Tamron is actually sharper in most of the tests and reviews, especially wide open at f2.8
for example,

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398

 

[photobob]

I am a lifelong Canon user and professional photographer, my biggest advice here is stick with Canon lenses and if you can afford L lenses by all means buy them! I usually use my 24-70 2.8 L lens for my walking around lens at WDW. I Sometimes I'll also pack my 17-40 4L and the 70-200 2.8 L.

http://www.bobcrispphotography.com/

 

[Code]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass

 

[photobob]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass

Good point, but I will tell you that I am pretty rough on equipment and I've yet to have to replace any Canon L lens and I've been using them since my film days. I bought the 70-200 2.8L second hand 12 years ago, 300 mm f4L 13 years ago also second hand, 24-70 2.8L probably 10 years ago. They are built like tanks. The lenses stay the same while I replace camera body after camera body.

I did buy Sigma's 17-35 2.8 and it it lasted me less than two years. First the autofocus quit and then it would only shoot at 2.8. A co-worker bought the same lens and had the same problem, he got it fixed. A few months later the problems returned and he literally threw it away.

What I am saying is if you can afford to purchase an L lens it is an excellent investment, not only do they perform beautifully they do so for a very long time and you're never looking to upgrade.

 

[photobob]

I'm a lifelong guy that likes to hang onto as much of his money as possible because I don't make any back on this hobby, and my biggest advice is to at least consider your options outside of Canon glass

Looked at your WDW photos on Flickr, beautiful stuff! I love photographing WDW at night, looking at your photos I may make myself take my tripod.

 

[InDashMP3]

Wow.. I'm glad someone posted that lens comparison site. I was looking to rent a good walk-around lens for my xsi for our trip in March. I was looking at the 15-85 (great range), but didn't know it would produce great images. To me, it seemed to blow away most other lenses I compared it to on the comparison page. It seemed sharper all the time.. Is that true?