Looking for new walk around lens

[BorisMD]

Hi all,

I'm afraid this has been asked before, but I can't find it in the archives.

I'm looking to replace my Canon Rebel XT kit lens with a different standard range zoom.

My choices so far (in no particular order) are:

1. EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM
2. EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
3. EF 24-70 2.8L USM
4. EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM

Choice number 4 has a low price point, but has some good online reviews, and is faster.

I'm intrigued by choice 2. It seems like one could take a picture in virtually no light with the IS and the 2.8 range. This lens is a little shorter, though.

Choice 3 is nice with the fast aperture, longer range and L glass.

Choice 1 Has a nice range, IS, but isn't otherwise very fast.

Comments?

Thanks,

Boris

 

[AndrewWG]

Hi all,

I'm afraid this has been asked before, but I can't find it in the archives.

I'm looking to replace my Canon Rebel XT kit lens with a different standard range zoom.

My choices so far (in no particular order) are:

1. EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM
2. EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
3. EF 24-70 2.8L USM
4. EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM

Choice number 4 has a low price point, but has some good online reviews, and is faster.

I'm intrigued by choice 2. It seems like one could take a picture in virtually no light with the IS and the 2.8 range. This lens is a little shorter, though.

Choice 3 is nice with the fast aperture, longer range and L glass.

Choice 1 Has a nice range, IS, but isn't otherwise very fast.

Comments?

Thanks,

Boris

I have #1. It isn't very fast, you're right about that. Other than that, it is a nice all around lens, I think. If I had the choices that you have, I would certainly go with #3. You can't top L glass. If that doesn't really fit your bill, I would imagine that #2 is cheaper and I would go with that since it is f2.8.

One lens I am personally keeping an eye on is that 24-70 f2.8L. It would work nicely with my 70-200 f2.8L. That would give me a nice broad range of f2.8L glass.

 

[Anewman]

I would go for number 3, it just fits my style of shooting best. I can not afford the L version so I got a knock off.

 

[mhutchinson]

I have #3 and it is a great lens and fast...but for walk around 70mm has limits if you are looking to use it around the parks.

Two other lenses that I have and did not see in your lineup that you might consider is the Canon 24-105 f/4 L IS...this lens will give you same/similar results as option #3 but add more zoom. If width is not as much of a concern then the Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is a great little walk around lens. You sacrifice 4mm on the wide end but gain 30mm on the telephoto and it is 1/2 the price of L glass (my old favorite).

A lens that has also caught my attention as a can-do/do-all is Tamron's new lens that goes 28mm-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI VC. I have read it gets a little slower to focus after 200mm, but it has vibration control and photos are fairly sharp.

Michael

 

[PhotobearSam]

I am looking at getting a 40D and the 17-85 because it's equal to my favourite film lens (28-105mm) that I used for fashion shoots but I agree it's a little on the slow side.

I really need something at least that wide...any other suggestions.

Sorry to butt into your thread

 

[mhutchinson]

I am looking at getting a 40D and the 17-85 because it's equal to my favourite film lens (28-105mm) that I used for fashion shoots but I agree it's a little on the slow side.

I really need something at least that wide...any other suggestions.

Sorry to butt into your thread

If you can decide how wide is wide enough for your typical shooting style, then that is a great start. I love my 28-135 because of 135mm end...but the 28mm on a 20D at times I wished was a little wider. I also picked up a 17-40mm L, awesome lens but really not deep enough....the advantage this lens was to me is that it showed to me what my favorite wide setting was 22-24mm. This gave me a starting point for the zoom.

After I realized that I eventually picked up both of Canon's L glass and keep either the 24-70mm f/2.8 L or my 24-105 f/4 L IS on my camera as a walk around most of the time.

If you really need the wider angles, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have some nice offerings as well with and without their versions of lens stabilization. I think the key is to identify the range you enjoy shooting in first, btw my favorite film range did not turn out to be my favorite digital range.

Michael

 

[pjacobi]

I'm looking to replace my Canon Rebel XT kit lens with a different standard range zoom.

My choices so far (in no particular order) are:

1. EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 IS USM
2. EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS
3. EF 24-70 2.8L USM
4. EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM

The Rebel line was designed to be small and light. If you add a heavy lens, it's no longer small and light!

The lens that you listed would fit better on xxD and xD series bodies. If your really want to one of the above four lens, I would strongly suggest upgrading you camera body.

If you want to keep your Rebel body, consider the *new* 18-55 IS which has recieved good review and is light and inexpensive. It mates really well with Rebel body.

Before you buy anything, be sure to try the lens in the store mated to your body. Then you will see exactly how heavy and awkward the 17-55 IS F2.8 is on a tiny Rebel body.


-Paul

 

[boBQuincy]

I have used the 24-85 and it is a nice lens, relatively small, light, and sharp. It is not in the same league as the 24-105 but it is also 1/3 the price. The 24-105 and 24-70 are big lenses, some people don't like carrying that much all day.

24 still seemed not wide enough on a 1.6x camera so I got a 16 and eventually a 10-22. The 17-85 might be a good choice unless you plan to add more lenses later.

Upgrading the lens will give more improvement in image quality than upgrading the body, for about the same $$$ if you get one of the L's. The difference is not what the difference in price would suggest but to me they are worth it.

One thing, if you don't use a camera support the difference in image quality may not be as much as you expect.

 

[PhotobearSam]

If you can decide how wide is wide enough for your typical shooting style, then that is a great start. I love my 28-135 because of 135mm end...but the 28mm on a 20D at times I wished was a little wider. I also picked up a 17-40mm L, awesome lens but really not deep enough....the advantage this lens was to me is that it showed to me what my favorite wide setting was 22-24mm. This gave me a starting point for the zoom.

After I realized that I eventually picked up both of Canon's L glass and keep either the 24-70mm f/2.8 L or my 24-105 f/4 L IS on my camera as a walk around most of the time.

If you really need the wider angles, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina have some nice offerings as well with and without their versions of lens stabilization. I think the key is to identify the range you enjoy shooting in first, btw my favorite film range did not turn out to be my favorite digital range.

Michael

Wow, I am even more confused...is the 24-70 digital or film? so 24-105 is digital but equal to what in film?

Sorry but I studied in film and all this digital SLR is confusing to me.

For me, I need at LEAST 28mm wide (Film) to be happy and I was told that was about an 18 in digital. I would like a little wider but would settle for 28mm (film) to at LEAST 105mm (film) at the long end but would prefer 135 or maybe even 200 if the glass was nice.

Sorry to not get it...I'm a little slow on the uptake

 

[BorisMD]

Thanks for your thoughtful responses.

Here's what I've got so far:

The kit lens
The cheap 75-300
The 10-22

I recently got the 10-22 and love it.

I love the feel, I love the fast, smooth, quiet USM, and I love playing with the wide angles. The feel of this better lens inspires me to go out and shoot more. It also has spoiled me to how much nicer a lens can be. As for the weight, I like the better heft with a larger lens. I don't think I need a bigger body, I think better glass will be a more significant improvement.

So, I'm looking to upgrade the kit lens first, then the tele-zoom.

The reason I don't want the new 18-55 IS is it shares some of the same faults of the original kit -- the front element rotates with focusing, and I suspect the build quality will not be any better.

In the last year, I rented a 24-105L IS, and while it's a nice beefy lens, I really didn't fall in love with it.

That's why I picked the 4 that I did. I actually wasn't even thinking of including the 24-85 at first, but there's a guy on ebay who has a few reviews written up, and he thought this lens was a very good bargain.

The place where I'm the most frustrated with my current arsenal is indoor events. When my daughter plays volleyball, I'm stuck using the cheap tele or the kit, and neither one excels in this environment. Also, my son does drama, and getting some shots when he is on stage is tough. I currently use my monopod and the kit or long lens.

So that's some more of my story.

Regards,

Boris

PS -- you can see some recent photos from my December Grand Floridian trip on this website:

http://borismd.smugmug.com/gallery/4095306#238716087

They're nothing special, and no post processing yet.

 

[Shutterbug]

The lens that came with my 40D kit was the 28-135 IS USM lens. For my taste its just not wide enough. I am used to using a 24mm on my 35mm SLR.
I really liked the type of perspectives I can get with that wide of a lens.
On my 35mm Elan I had 3 lens that I took everywhere with me:
1) 24-80
2)70-300 1:4-5.6
3) 50mm 1.8

For me those lens filled every need I had. I really wish the kit had contained a wider lens.

So as soon as I have some more money I will probably be looking for a wider lens.

 

[AndrewWG]

The Rebel line was designed to be small and light. If you add a heavy lens, it's no longer small and light!

The lens that you listed would fit better on xxD and xD series bodies. If your really want to one of the above four lens, I would strongly suggest upgrading you camera body.

If you want to keep your Rebel body, consider the *new* 18-55 IS which has recieved good review and is light and inexpensive. It mates really well with Rebel body.

Before you buy anything, be sure to try the lens in the store mated to your body. Then you will see exactly how heavy and awkward the 17-55 IS F2.8 is on a tiny Rebel body.

-Paul

I guess I don't follow what you are saying here. All of these lenses will be fine on the Rebel. Why would they be a problem? A 40D or a 1d look pretty silly with a 600mm lens on them, but it doesn't stop people from using them. It makes the camera look tiny. Is there mechanical or physical flaws in the Rebel line that would cause a larger lens to not work properly on them? I ask because I have the 30D and some nice lenses. I plan on using that and a borrowed XTi this summer to photograph baseball games. Will my larger lenses be a problem somehow?

 

[My2Girls66]

Not to confuse the issue but I have an 18-135mm lens on my D50. I think thats a great range and size for an everyday- walk around lens. I like having the 18mm(27mm equiv.) end and the 135 end is like 200mm.

 

[Anewman]

I'm the most frustrated with my current arsenal is indoor events. When my daughter plays volleyball, I'm stuck using the cheap tele or the kit, and neither one excels in this environment. Also, my son does drama, and getting some shots when he is on stage is tough. I currently use my monopod and the kit or long lens.

You may also want to consider a fast prime like the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2.0, you sacrifice zoom capabilities but the amount of light captured by them can not be matched by any zoom.

 

[jann1033]

I guess I don't follow what you are saying here. All of these lenses will be fine on the Rebel. Why would they be a problem? A 40D or a 1d look pretty silly with a 600mm lens on them, but it doesn't stop people from using them. It makes the camera look tiny. Is there mechanical or physical flaws in the Rebel line that would cause a larger lens to not work properly on them? I ask because I have the 30D and some nice lenses. I plan on using that and a borrowed XTi this summer to photograph baseball games. Will my larger lenses be a problem somehow?

my 70-200 isn't. , my tokina is heavy for its size( 10-17) and isn't and the 28-135 isn't a lightweight either...personally i would get the lenses you think you want to keep when you eventually will upgrade the body in a few yrs. unless there are a red carpet fashion police for camera lens and body style, which if there are ,in that case i guess i look trashy with my rebel body and big white lens

 

[woj68]

The place where I'm the most frustrated with my current arsenal is indoor events. When my daughter plays volleyball, I'm stuck using the cheap tele or the kit, and neither one excels in this environment. Also, my son does drama, and getting some shots when he is on stage is tough. I currently use my monopod and the kit or long lens.

If you're looking to shoot indoors you'll need something fast. You might want to consider either the 24-70 or the 70-200.

Both are very fast and the IQ is outstanding. But that quality comes at a price, around $1000-1200 each.

Good luck Boris.

 

[jann1033]

Wow, I am even more confused...is the 24-70 digital or film? so 24-105 is digital but equal to what in film?

Sorry but I studied in film and all this digital SLR is confusing to me.

For me, I need at LEAST 28mm wide (Film) to be happy and I was told that was about an 18 in digital. I would like a little wider but would settle for 28mm (film) to at LEAST 105mm (film) at the long end but would prefer 135 or maybe even 200 if the glass was nice.

Sorry to not get it...I'm a little slow on the uptake

i was the same place, digital from film really threw me
as far as i know they always use the film equivilant for mm so 24-105 would be the film, digital would be the crop factor( 1.6 for 40d) x what ever the filmmm is ...so the above is 38-168, yeah probably not wide enough but a nice reach. i have a 28-135 for a walk around lens, i like it but i tend to shoot toward the longer end anyway...i got a 10-17 or use my kit lens for the rare times i need something wider...the 10-17 is really a fish eye but at 17 isn't real fishy and i can crop enough to basically have it just look wide.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Wow, I am even more confused...is the 24-70 digital or film? so 24-105 is digital but equal to what in film?

Sorry but I studied in film and all this digital SLR is confusing to me.

For me, I need at LEAST 28mm wide (Film) to be happy and I was told that was about an 18 in digital. I would like a little wider but would settle for 28mm (film) to at LEAST 105mm (film) at the long end but would prefer 135 or maybe even 200 if the glass was nice.

Sorry to not get it...I'm a little slow on the uptake

I am a Nikon person, so I'm sorry to jump in on a Canon question I know very little about, but I don't think anyone answered your question. So, I'll take a try at it.

I don't remember all the technical details, but the sensor on a digital camera is smaller than a sensor on a 35mm camera (unless it is a "full frame" digital camera which the 40d is not). So, to get the equivalent focal length in digital, you have to multiply the focal length of the lens by a crop factor. On my Nikon, the crop factor is 1.5. I know the Rebel line is 1.6 and would assume the 40d is the same. (I know it is more complicated than this, but this is the simple explanation). A 18-55mm kit lens would then by 27-83mm on my Nikon and 29-88mm on a Canon. To my knowledge, all lenses still use the 35mm equivalent in their description meaning that you need to multiply by the crop factor to get the digital equivalent.

If you want 28mm on the wide end, you will be looking at a 17 or 18mm lens.

Hope that makes sense. I'm sure someone will come along and give a better explanation, but maybe this will help for now.

 

[alan]

Steve's girl is right on this.

When companies quote focal length on lenses (for SLRs), they quote the focal length of the lens. End of story. The focal length of the lens does not change depending on the size of the sensor.

However, the field of view (the angle seen by the sensor through the lens) does change depending on the size of your lens.

To calculate the 35mm-equivalent focal length for a lens on the 40d, you multiply the real focal length by 1.6. So a 17mm focal length lens on a 40d gives you the same field of view as a (17 * 1.6) 27.2mm ;ens on a 35mm film camera.

HtH,

regards,
/alan

 

[PhotobearSam]

I like the length of the 17-85 (If I understand correctly that would be equivalent to 28 to 136 mm) but I find it a bit slow...Are there any others out there with approximately the same length but a little faster?

Thank you to all who are trying to explain.