# Need a nice Canon walk around lens...



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

Hey guys I need a nice walk around lens. I do not want an L series, but one that is very comprable, in sharpness, build quality, and focusing. My limit is ablut 700-800 bucks.

Anywhere between 20-100 mm is fine. 

I do not want an L.

ive been doing a lot of searing but havent turned up many options. let me hear what you guys think


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 8, 2009)

May I ask why you dont want an L lens?  Many of them are well within your budget. (ok not many maybe, but a few used are.)  If it's because they're white, not all L lenses are white just an fyi.  I might consider a sigma or tamron 24-70 2.8.

Edit:  If my post came across as arrogant sorry about that, I didn't mean it to.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 8, 2009)

What camera do you have?  And why the hostility toward the L?


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

Photoincollege thats fine your post did not come across as arrogant at all. And i know they are not all white. 

I dont want an L because i have a coupon for 15% off any non L canon BRAND (not canon mount) lens for my local camera shop.  I called them today and They said if they dont have the one in stock, they will order it for me. 

So:
Canon BRAND
Aroudn 20-100 mm is good
really prefer a constant aperture (f2.8 or f4, not f5.6)
Non L series

and i have a 30d


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 8, 2009)

oh ok that makes sense now lol.  Do you mind primes or would you prefer a zoom?


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2009)

is the amount you state at the start including or excluding the 15%off?
As for constant f2.8/4 apertures I think most of those are going to be L series lenses from Canon - so that will leave you with sigma and tamron as options to consider - but they are not canon so won't get the discount.

Without L your losing access to some great walk around lenses - the 24-70mm f2.8 L and 24-105mm f4 IS L.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

I definatleydibt want a prime and the 700-800 range is the reular retail price.

So.. Is there any options?


----------



## Overread (Apr 8, 2009)

honestly I would be very tempted to follow the second hand market (or save a little longer) the 24-105mm f4 L is only a little over that price range and that is a fantastic walk around lens for the money.

I know 15% off is a good offer (especaily in these times) but the only lens that would suit you would probably me this one:
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM - Canon UK

fixed aperture, IS and a reasonable focal range, though you might find 55m a little short for walkaround. Its also EFS only so it won't follow you if you decide to go fullframe in the future.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

Yeahtht was the Only option I really found but it's like $1000!!
I could get an L lens for less than that. 

Why is that lens so much


----------



## Montana (Apr 8, 2009)

Because it only lacks the red ring to be an "L".  Maybe some build quality lacking too.  Otherwise, its a stellar lens!


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

i know but i still think thats crazy. i can get an L series lens for like 700 brand new!


----------



## CW Jones (Apr 8, 2009)

feRRari4756 said:


> i know but i still think thats crazy. i can get an L series lens for like 700 brand new!




lol do that then! haha


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

right now thats what im thinking about doing. 

but first i want to "explore my options" before i drop up to 1000 bucks on a lens. 

So...is there any other lens except the (very expensive) 17-55? (remember no "L")


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 8, 2009)

Well the main problem is, your not going to get the quality you want, and a fixed large aperture, unless you do go with an L lens or a prime. (for the most part.)  I can't really think of any other lenses except the 17-55.  XD Sorry I cant be of more help.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 8, 2009)

The EF-S 17-55mm IS, is a killer lens.  Probably the best EF-S lens.  The IS system has some durability issues but image quality is on par with L zooms.  That's why it's so expensive.  

A good walk around lens on a crop body might be the 17-85mm IS.  The max aperture isn't great, but the range is great.  I have a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 (also a great lens) but for general walk around stuff, I still grab by 17-85mm.  

How about a macro lens?  The 100mm or even the 60mm EF-S macro?

I forgot about the other great Ef-S lens...the 10-22mm.  Maybe too wide for 'walk around'...but I love the wide angle.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

hmm i was just taking a look at the 17-85 and that looks like a good posibility. only downside is the aperture like you said. 

how do you think the imagae quality of this lens is? is this also on par with the L series? and the build quality?


----------



## photogincollege (Apr 8, 2009)

The lens will be pretty good.  It wont get you into L lens territory, but thats not really what its meant to do.  Its a pretty good image quality, very versatile lens.  Though from what I've read on it it doesn't do so well on the wide angle end.


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 8, 2009)

yea  i was just reading some reviews to. i dont think it will do good on the wide angle end. 

i tink im getting thw 1000 one. 

thanks guys !


----------



## anubis404 (Apr 8, 2009)

The 17-55mm is probably your best bet for a non L lens, and is a great walkaround lens on a DX body. However, if you can afford it, I would spring for the 24-105mm. Before you say it (for the fifth time), I know its an L lens, but its a great investment. Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.


----------



## j-digg (Apr 9, 2009)

(Assuming you didn't already purchase the lens you were interested in) How long is the coupon good for? Perhaps you could explore a different kind of photography and get a quality non L lens such as an EF 100mm 2.8 macro (for examples sake), save a decent amount of cash on something you may be interested in later anyhow and still have some cash left over to put towards a walk around L lens a bit later.  I'm sure this has crossed your mind, and I know how it is when you want something specific hehe.. just trying to help ya cover all bases I guess.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Apr 9, 2009)

anubis404 said:


> Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.



I have one of those shiny paperweights and I can't speak highly enough of them on a crop sensor body. Much of the stuff on my flickr site is taken with it. Check this image out, and bear in mind that the shot was taken at 1/3s hand held at f/2.8 - Replicant Soup


----------



## EhJsNe (Apr 9, 2009)

I have an 80-200 for my NIkon camera, and canon makes a 70-300, im not sure which one, that Im sure would be great, and on B&H it was under 200 dollars.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 9, 2009)

> Should you decide to go full frame, that 17-55 is going to become a shiny paperweight.


It could easily be sold for 80-90% of the purchase price.  Good quality lenses hold their value very well.


----------



## anubis404 (Apr 9, 2009)

Chris of Arabia said:


> I have one of those shiny paperweights and I can't speak highly enough of them on a crop sensor body. Much of the stuff on my flickr site is taken with it. Check this image out, and bear in mind that the shot was taken at 1/3s hand held at f/2.8 - Replicant Soup



Hey, I'm not dissin the 17-55. I love my 18-50. However, I don't know what the posters intentions are, and with full frame becoming less and less expensive, and more popular, it would seem wiser to go with an FF lens.


----------



## Montana (Apr 9, 2009)

I have to agree with Big Mike.  That 17-55 will hold darn near all its value.  It is, was, and always will be a fine piece of kit.  Folks will always be wanting them. (so long as Canon continues with the EF EF-S mounts).


----------



## feRRari4756 (Apr 9, 2009)

thanks eveyrone for the replies. I think Im going withthe 17-55.

I was just looking at ebay and you guys were right . they are getting 800 bucks no problem for those lenses!!! (used)

Im sure if i put it out there for 900 someone would come across and buy it. 

so yeah, im probably getting that lens. 

thank


----------



## FrankLamont (Apr 9, 2009)

Before you do (I hope I'm in time), I'd suggest the 28-135mm IS.

It's a good lens, gives you a wider range. And it has IS, of course.


----------



## Montana (Apr 9, 2009)

I have the 28-135, and I consider it to be the paperweight.  LOL  Seriously, I hate that lens.  Others may or may not like it, but I find it worthless on crop sensor.  I think the 17-55 is way better for a walk-about lens.


----------



## CxThree (Apr 10, 2009)

IMHO the image quality on the 28-135 cannot touch the 17-55.  Furthermore, the wide angle of the 17 -55 allows a lot of shots the 28-135 simply cannot take.  If you need more focal range, use the old method.  Walk.


----------



## NateWagner (Apr 10, 2009)

yeah, I would definitely go with the 17-55 over the 28-135. First there is the fact that the 28-135 is a 3.5-5.6 lens, which makes the IS less useful indoors, as you will be stuck with a slow shutter speed and therefore have motion blur (there I would rather have the 2.8). Plus, the 17-55 is well known to have a better IQ. Of course, you do pay for it, as the 850+ of the 17-55 is quite a bit more than the 250 you might pay for the 28-135


----------

