Suggestion: All Around Lens/canon Eos?

[toocooltobeMom]

DH need advise from all the photo-know-how's here. DH has a Canon Eos with the basic 18-55mm. He wants to know what would one recommend for him. He needs one-do-it-all lens. How is the "new generation" IS lens?

Appreciate any feedback.

 

[mhutchinson]

Depending on how much you wanted to spend, my two favorite walk around lenses are the Canon 28-135mm IS and the Canon 24-105mm L IS (expensive). IS definitely adds to my ability to get steadier hand held shots and I don't find for my shooting style a need to go bellow the bottom end of either lens. Another lens favorite on this board is the Sigma 18-125mm, but it does not have IS. Other makers such as Tamron and Tokina also have lenses in that same 18-125mm range that have been rated well.

Mike

 

[toocooltobeMom]

Thanks Mike. DH is researching your suggestion at this moment.

 

[Cyrano]

Mines is a 24-105mm

 

[toocooltobeMom]

good choice.

 

[toocooltobeMom]

how much your lens cost you?

 

[jann1033]

i love my 28-135 is( about $400) and since you have the 18-55 you'd have the wider angle covered if you need it. i'll see if i want more zoom on vacation and if so start saving for the 70-300 is

 

[ndelaware]

Canon 28-135IS for me.

 

[0bli0]

What body, what's your budget, and how often will he/you be using it? my DW has the Canon 28-135 IS. it works fantastically well *and* the IS helps her with camera shake. it's also not very heavy at all to carry around.

for me, the 24-70 2.8 L is my perfect walk-around lens. it is fast (both light and AF) and nicely sharp. i tried the 24-105 F4 IS but hate it compared to the 24-70. but these lenses aren't for everyone for a vareity of reasons.

some others that you might look at:
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX
Sigma 18-125

i highly recommend avoiding most manufacturer's 28-200 as they generally suffer from being soft and bad barrel distortion at the wide end.

 

[Boss Hogg]

I've just recently got the Sigma 18-125 and am very pleased with it, especially when considering the price.

Range you want is going to be the issue. I have the Canon 18-55, 28-80 and 75-300. My overriding requirement was a good walk around lens, which I didn't need to change. So, I wanted quite a wide end along with a decent zoom.

For this reason, the Canon options were no good for me, and for the amount I wanted to spend L lenses were not an option.

Best idea is to find a camera shop with those you're considering and go and have a play with them.

One thing I do know is the more you read the more confused you'll become!

 

[toocooltobeMom]

Thank you all. Great to know everything before actually shopping for one.
By the way, we have just bought a Canon SD630 for our son (14 1/2 yrs old). Can he too take some relatively decent pictures with the new toy? DH tries to turn him into an amateur Jr. photographer wanna-be. Check out some of my son pix.

taken @ Morroco

 

[BeautyLLM]

Another vote for the 24-105L IS. It's a great walkabout lens. The IS enables me to do so much more in low light (sunsets for example) and there is a distinct difference with L glass (hence the hefty price tag). I suppose if I ever get good at this photography thing, I'll wish for a larger aperture, but for me now, this a great lens!

 

[homerdog]

i tried the 24-105 F4 IS but hate it compared to the 24-70.

You can't say you hate it without giving some valid reasons! Why don't you like it?

 

[0bli0]

sorry - you're right. the speed of AF, the maximum aperture, the propensity for lens flare, image quality up close, image quality at 24mm, and a few other minor things that reminded me of the 28-70 2.8L which i used to have. i tried it for a week. it's a good successor to the 28-135 IS, but it's by no means a replacement for the 24-70 2.8L.

I suppose you can say i'm very particular about lenses - especially at walk-around range. the image quality of the 28-300 IS is much better, but no one wants a 1.7kg walk around lens.

 

[boBQuincy]

I started with Canon's 24-85, a mid-priced lens that is very sharp for the price but not built too well. After 5 years this lens has developed a sticky spot around 50 mm, where it doesn't want to go any further unless it is held upside down (?) .
We just ordered a new 24-85 for my wife's Rebel XT, if it goes as long as the last one we won't be dissappointed. For $300 the image quality is very good.

As for me, I like Canon's 24-105. I haven't noticed any of the problems 0bli0 mentioned but if you read some reviews you will find these are not isolated issues. My first 24-105 went back, it was not as sharp as my 24-85 and for $900 more it darn well should be! My 2nd 24-105 has been to Canon for 'adjustment', it was better than the first one but still not what it should have been.

It appears Canon has trouble making the 24-105, good ones are *really* good but many have troubles. This should not occur on a top of the line $1200 lens! If you want one, be prepared to go through two of them to get there.

Ok, rant mode off, Canon's 24-70 is a really fine lens but too large for my taste, if the 24-105 issues scare you off I would suggest Canon's 24-85.
If you need wider (and IS), Canon's 17-85 is *much* better in reality than the tests suggest. I have carefully looked at images from this lens and yes, it has problems, but less than most comparable 3rd party lenses.

Why Canon and no one else? I have read too many reports of other lenses not focusing properly, needing chip upgrades when a new camera comes out, etc.

ymmv ...

 

[MarkBarbieri]

He needs one-do-it-all lens.

There isn't one. I don't think that it's possible.

No one even makes a really wide zoom range on a lens with a fast aperture. So your first decision is whether you are happy to stay with a range like 24-70 or whether you are content with a slow lens.

If you want a really large zoom range, like a 28-200, you'll have to put up with a lot of optical deficiencies. Even an inexpensive set of zooms like the 18-55 and the 70-300 are likely to give you much better performance than zoom that covers all ranges.

You can't get it all in one lens. You've got to decide what you want to give up - long telephoto, wide angle, image quality, or lens speed.

 

[Cap'n Keel]

Excellent recommendations for walk-around lens.
Personally I use the 28-135. Wish I could afford the 28-300.
Saving my nickels for the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS

B&H Prices -
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM $ 419.95
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM $ 1,149.95
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM $ 2,199.95

 

[WillCAD]

There isn't one. I don't think that it's possible.

No one even makes a really wide zoom range on a lens with a fast aperture. So your first decision is whether you are happy to stay with a range like 24-70 or whether you are content with a slow lens.

If you want a really large zoom range, like a 28-200, you'll have to put up with a lot of optical deficiencies. Even an inexpensive set of zooms like the 18-55 and the 70-300 are likely to give you much better performance than zoom that covers all ranges.

You can't get it all in one lens. You've got to decide what you want to give up - long telephoto, wide angle, image quality, or lens speed.

I certainly agree with that Mark, but there are plenty of times when the compromise is acceptable.

In my case, in particular, the compromise of a wide zoom range is just fine. My pics are almost exclusively vacation-type casual stuff where I don't require the enhanced sharpness of separate lenses or the extra steadiness/f-stop range of an IS lens.

I make do with the Sigma 18-125 lens and I've been very pleased with it so far. It's perfectly adequate for ordinary vacation shots, christmas with the family, visits to the zoo, stuff like that.

 

[toocooltobeMom]

I totally agree with all of your insights. I have to say I would get a 24-105mm IS for its stabilizer. I am getting to that age where your hands never agree with your brain. Especially with those shaky hands, a good lens w/IS will diguised the pix quality.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that no one should try to buy a general purpose lens. Just realize that no one lens does everything well and make the tradeoffs appropriate for your situation.

Here are some of the good and bad points to some of the lenses mentioned here:

Sigma 18-128 - Awesome range. Low price. Poor AF and wide end of the zoom range. CA problems. Soft. Vignetting when shot wide. Cannot be used on a 1.3x or FF body. No IS. Slow AF. No wide aperture.

Canon 28-135 IS - Not very wide on a 1.6x body. Not terribly expensive. Older IS. No wide aperture.

Canon 24-105 IS - Good range. Quite expensive. No wide aperture.

Canon 24-70 - Fast focusing. Bright in viewfinder. Wide aperture. Not much telephoto. No IS. Quite expensive. Heavy.

Pick your poison. You can't have fast, sharp, light, with great range. Not at any price.