Canon General Purpose Lens ...??

[AlienBrain]

I have a Canon XTi with the nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8 lens. Love the lens, but I find that 50mm on a x1.6 body is too much zoom in many cases. I am looking for a walk-around lens, and I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses, all with positives and negatives. All the lenses start at 17mm b/c I want to go as low as I can. I would like for some of you to help me with this decision ... please!!

1. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ~$419.95 (positive: fast and cheap, supposedly good IQ) (negatgive: loud focus and third party lens)
2. Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ~$960 (positive: great image quality, image stabilization, fast and quiet focusing) (negative: a little out of my price range; reported to collect a lot of dust, seems pricey for not being an L)
3. Canon 17-40 f/4 L ~$650(positive: L class construction, sharp image quality, in my price range) (negative: don't know if f/4 is fast enough)

So there it is, those are the lenses I am considering. I am sure I am leaving out some positives and negatives, and that is why I am asking this question to all of you. Now for some suggestions ...

 

[AndrewWG]

I don't know about those lenses other than I have heard great things about the Canon 17-55 2.8. Of course, I have also read about the dust issue.

Here is one I have been sort of keeping an eye on but haven't really gone looking for reviews or anything yet. It is new so I'm not sure if there are reviews.

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=203459344&listingid=7655159&dcaid=17902

I would guess it is better than the Tamron, but it is possible that it is not as Tamron makes a great lens as well. It does give you some macro capabilities though. I just don't really like a "macro" zoom lens. It should work well, but I prefer the primes.

 

[dmccarty]

Of the three I would pick the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ~$960.

However, I don't know if it would be on my list.

For out last trip I bought and took a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It worked real well in some very low light situations. A f/2.8 lens could not have taken the shot with the same ISO setting.

I REALLY liked the 50/1.4 lens. I'm getting photos at home without a flash that I could not get before. And we like the flashless photos better.

I only have one zoom, a 35-70 f/2.8. Its a danged good lens but heavy.

The question to ask yourself is what do you need or care about? Do you need a faster than 2.8 lens? I find that f2.8 is about as slow of a lens I'll buy. Can you work around the lack of a zoom and use your feet? Doing this at WDW is possible but it can be a challenge. Do you care about the weight? For the price of the zoom could you buy a 50mm f1.4 and a wider lens with f2.8? Would this save money? I can change lenses pretty quick. And how much money can you, should you spend?

SLR/DSLR cameras are just computers to which you mount a lens. My lenses have now been used on three different cameras, two film bodies and now a D200. The lenses have held their value. The camera bodies not so much. I'm seriously thinking of selling the D200 and upgrading to a D300. But I'm not telling the DW my thoughts given how much we spent for a new PC to process photos.

Buy good lenses. A better body will be here tomorrow. Lenses are not really changing that much in comparison.

Later,
Dan

 

[SueInBoston]

I have a Canon XTi with the nifty fifty 50mm f/1.8 lens. Love the lens, but I find that 50mm on a x1.6 body is too much zoom in many cases. I am looking for a walk-around lens, and I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses, all with positives and negatives. All the lenses start at 17mm b/c I want to go as low as I can. I would like for some of you to help me with this decision ... please!!

1. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 ~$419.95 (positive: fast and cheap, supposedly good IQ) (negatgive: loud focus and third party lens)
2. Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS ~$960 (positive: great image quality, image stabilization, fast and quiet focusing) (negative: a little out of my price range; reported to collect a lot of dust, seems pricey for not being an L)
3. Canon 17-40 f/4 L ~$650(positive: L class construction, sharp image quality, in my price range) (negative: don't know if f/4 is fast enough)

So there it is, those are the lenses I am considering. I am sure I am leaving out some positives and negatives, and that is why I am asking this question to all of you. Now for some suggestions ...

I'm a casual shooter, mostly kids and vacation pictures. This is just my own weird specification. I have the 17-40L but it's not fast enough for low light and you cannot use the onboard flash as it will create a shadow. Since I don't always carry the external flash, I was very frustrated with this as a walkaround lens. (I also found it big on my XT) I still have it and use it on my 40D when I'm outdoor.

So I picked up the Tamron, speed is good, AF is a bit loud but I'm getting used to it. I can use the onboard flash if I have to so I'm really happy.

 

[AlienBrain]

Thanks for the replies all of you. I think I have narrowed it down between the Canon 17-55 or the Tamron 17-50. Then again, I may investigate the use of primes as suggested by dmccarty...

 

[DizzyV6P]

The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a fantastically sharp lens, much like its older brother, the 28-75 f/2.8.

You can see examples here:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209580&highlight=17-50

I never notice the focus noise and as far as buying third party goes, you would be hard pressed to find a used version simply because everyone loves this lens. Granted, there are a few bad ones out there from 3rd parties, but as long as you avoid those, the good ones will mostly retain its value.

If you've got money to blow, the Canon 17-55 IS is the king of those 3 lenses. I personally got the Tamron and picked up a 70-200 f/4L from the $$ left over for my setup. It's a great walkaround lens that's fast enough for most low light shots. The Canon will add the IS to aid in low light shooting, but is it worth the extra $300-$400? That's something only you can answer for yourself

 

[Master Mason]

From my reading the only reason the canon 17-55 is not an L lens is that they have chosen so far not to give the L designatiion to any lens that is EF-s. I thought about getting it for a while when I ultimately bought the 24-70 f/2.8L.

One more thing to keep in mind is the lens hood doesn't come with that lens, so that's another 30-40 bucks to spend as well.

 

[AlienBrain]

From my reading the only reason the canon 17-55 is not an L lens is that they have chosen so far not to give the L designatiion to any lens that is EF-s. I thought about getting it for a while when I ultimately bought the 24-70 f/2.8L.

One more thing to keep in mind is the lens hood doesn't come with that lens, so that's another 30-40 bucks to spend as well.

Oh really ... that explains the whole non-L issue.

 

[MassJester]

I have to voice my support for the 24-105mm L -- it's an excellent lense, and I lean on it for my walk around. The 24mm is not that limiting (of course I started shooting when 50mm was the "normal" lense), and a few steps back usually cures any ills when it comes to getting everything in.

 

[AlienBrain]

I have to voice my support for the 24-105mm L -- it's an excellent lense, and I lean on it for my walk around. The 24mm is not that limiting (of course I started shooting when 50mm was the "normal" lense), and a few steps back usually cures any ills when it comes to getting everything in.

Gosh I wish I had the money to spend on that lens or the 24-70mm L

 

[MassJester]

Gosh I wish I had the money to spend on that lens or the 24-70mm L

Sometimes it's worth saving and waiting.

 

[boBQuincy]

I have to voice my support for the 24-105mm L -- it's an excellent lense, and I lean on it for my walk around. The 24mm is not that limiting (of course I started shooting when 50mm was the "normal" lense), and a few steps back usually cures any ills when it comes to getting everything in.

I agree, it is an excellent all-around lens unless you really feel the need for a wide angle.