# Best Canon walk around lens?



## David A (Nov 11, 2005)

Hey guys...I finally am getting a DSLR and I want to start investing in lenses. I have been reading some reviews and I think a good area to start may be the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM...

Does anyone have an alternative to this? All replies are appreciated...


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 11, 2005)

I didn't hear too many great things about that lens.

Usually 28-135 is praised for excellent optical quality. 28-105 is so-so.

If I were to start over, my first lens would be 50/1.8 It's HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be a bad choice for a first lens, unless you can afford 50/1.4 which costs 300 bucks and is worth every penny.

50/1.8 and 35/2

Good luck


----------



## David A (Nov 11, 2005)

Oh, the 50mm 1.8 is with out a doubt the other lens I am going to pick up...it's a must...

But you would suggest the 28-135 over the 28-105? I'll look more into it...thanks.

I am mostly looking for a good walk around with a nice zoom range.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 11, 2005)

Today we think we have to have a zoom with a lot of range to get "the" shot. I fall into that trap as well.  I have a lot of glass to choose from and to be honest by nature we are all lazy. When I bought my first SLR and then my first Nikon, I shot a "normal" lens for years. A 45 or 50mm lens is an ideal lens for a film or full frame camera. A 28 to 35mm lens is great for a clipped chip DSLR. You can't go wrong by learning your craft with a good normal lens. You won't find any glass any sharper.


----------



## RickyN29 (Nov 12, 2005)

What about the 17-85 USM IS?  (For a 1.6x crop factored DSLR)

Seems to be a great range.  Fair price, supposedly great optics.

That is what I was planning to get to replace my kit 18-55


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 12, 2005)

RickyN29 said:
			
		

> supposedly great optics


I think you nailed it for that lens. :lmao:

I'd never buy it. Optically it's marginally better than 18-55... It costs as much as 17-40 L which is WAY better, can be used on full frame and has weather seals. And 17-85 can't be used on FF... where canon seems to be going right now.

Image stabilization, three aspherical elements and USM makes it expensive... and marketing. But the quality is low and the lens is SLOW.

For those money, you're much better off with a kit lens and primes like 35/2, 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 The quality with those lenses is simply STUNNING and they are classics.

So don't buy into the marketing BS by chasing aspherical elements and buy "old triend and tested" You'll never regret it... especially when you start shooting in low light.


----------



## RickyN29 (Nov 12, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> I think you nailed it for that lens. :lmao:
> 
> I'd never buy it. Optically it's marginally better than 18-55... It costs as much as 17-40 L which is WAY better, can be used on full frame and has weather seals. And 17-85 can't be used on FF... where canon seems to be going right now.
> 
> ...


 
Dammit, really?  I was set on buying that one.   It really has the range I want, and I have incredibly shaky hands so I really need IS (had IS on another camera, made a huge difference)

Grrrrr....why can't they make the lens I want!!!!!  I loved my Canon 36-432mm IS on the S2 but yeah.....


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 12, 2005)

You have a dslr now... you don't need IS anymore

1) The camera is bigger, and hence more stable. That adds a stop
2) The lenses are generally faster. S2 is f/2.7-3.5 and that's pretty slow. If you use f/1.4 or f/2 you get 4-8 times higher shutter speeds
3) On S2 IS you only get decent quality with ISO 50. In XT you can choose ISO 800 or even 1600 and still get printable results.

Which means that on average, given fast lenses, your shutter speeds will be 8 to 128 times higher elliminating the need for IS... and of course you can get 70-200 f/2.8 IS too.

And if that's not enough, get some support. You have a big boy's camera now - get a monopod and a tripod!


----------



## RickyN29 (Nov 12, 2005)

Got both a Tripod and Monopod, but sometimes they are not ideal to be used. I definitely love the ability to shoot higher ISOs, which helps, but from the 3000+ pics I have shot so far, at least twice the amount are throw aways with the SLR compared to the S2. The IS _really_ worked wonders. Without using primes, those apertures are going to be only in some really expensive L lenses which are unfortunately out of my budget.

I am not at all trying to say the S2 was a better camera, just that I miss the focal range and the IS.

I should also add, I have a nerve problem in my hands, but no insurance or anything anymore, repairable supposedly, but I have learned to just deal with it.  Although it has been embarrassing being made fun of by friends cause my hands shake pretty bad (I am only 22)



			
				DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> You have a dslr now... you don't need IS anymore
> 
> 1) The camera is bigger, and hence more stable. That adds a stop
> 2) The lenses are generally faster. S2 is f/2.7-3.5 and that's pretty slow. If you use f/1.4 or f/2 you get 4-8 times higher shutter speeds
> ...


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 12, 2005)

I really don't know then. Maybe a flash? No amount of handshake can affect the sharpness then...

But the pics would be flat then.


----------



## RickyN29 (Nov 12, 2005)

Well getting an IS lens for this camera should work out, I just have to find the right one.


----------



## woodsac (Nov 12, 2005)

My primary walk around is the 17-85mm IS. The only time you here anything bad about this lens, is when someone compares it to 'L' glass. It's not L glass and you're only paying 1/3 of the price of L glass with IS. For the price and the IS function, it can't be beat!

I rarely ever use a tripod, ever. The IS feature saves more photos than any fast lens could. I generate twice as many bad photos with my 50mm f/1.8 handheld. I am not a professional, so I can't justify spending $1500+ on a single lens. Especially not just a daily walk around. Granted the 17-40mm L is only about $700, it doesn't have IS (and it sounds like you would benefit from the IS). 

Almost every photo I've posted here was taken with the 17-85. It might not be up to the standards of some, but I guarantee that most would not know that I wasn't using L glass if I didn't say so. You can spend $8000 on the body and have $20,000 in lenses. That won't make you take good photos if you don't know how to use them. If you "walk around" with your camera _and_ tripod every time you go out, you don't need the IS. Take it for what it's worth?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 12, 2005)

Ask 10 people get 20 opinions? lol


----------



## David A (Nov 12, 2005)

From personal experience...my tripod doesn't leave my side. I probably look like a fool walking around with it; in the end, though, it always did its job and I was never dissapointed. 

I have seen photos from L lenses and, yes, they are completely incredible...however, I am only 17 and I doubt I'll be filling the stockade with an L lens for a good while...

So far...I have narrowed it down to:

50mm f/1.8 (either I or II...not sure. Does anyone know about the generation difference? Build, quality)

From the other choices...I still think the 28-105 still comes out on top. Does anyone else have anything in a reasonable price range (under $300) that beats out the 28-105 (1st gen)? I'm open to anything...

Finally, the last one that I'll end up getting is probably the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM after I can get the money together...

After that...I'll go with a few prime lenses...

Does anyone else think that there is a better way to approach this?

Thanks for all of the help...I appreciate it.


----------



## jstuedle (Nov 12, 2005)

> Dammit, really? I was set on buying that one. It really has the range I want, and I have incredibly shaky hands so I really need IS (had IS on another camera, made a huge difference)




I have a friend with Parkinson's and shakes like a mutt passing razor blades. He has worked on his holding technique and can hand hold any lens at the reciprocal of its focal length over shutter speed. (A 50mm @ 1/60th, a 200mm @ 1/250th and so on. I believe anyone can do this with practice and proper technique. With concentration most of us can do much better. I have hand held my 400 f/3.5 and 1/125 with great results. It just takes practice.


----------



## LizM (Nov 12, 2005)

I have a friend with a 28-300 (Tamron or Sigma) and he loves it!  I've seen his shots (we are the two "photo nuts" at the office) and they are clear and sharp so it really seems to be a good lens.  It's about $400 but you wouldn't have to change lenses very often.


----------



## Marctwo (Nov 12, 2005)

LizM said:
			
		

> I have a friend with a 28-300 (Tamron or Sigma) and he loves it!


I don't think many here will take that lens seriously.

However, I have one myself (Sigma) and I can't imagine life without it. :thumbup:


----------



## LizM (Nov 12, 2005)

Marctwo said:
			
		

> I don't think many here will take that lens seriously.


 
Yeah I know.:er:   I've kinda gotten used to it.  I work in a "high class" office too - and after you get used to parking a Kia next to Mercedes every day you begin to realize they both get the job done.



			
				Marctwo said:
			
		

> However, I have one myself (Sigma) and I can't imagine life without it. :thumbup:


 
I'm saving up for it myself - can't wait for Christmas!!!


----------



## 'Daniel' (Nov 12, 2005)

Canon 70-200mm F/4L.

Reasonably priced white L lens.  Great optics, light and compact enough to be a walk around lens.  I'm thinknig of buying one after a while.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&cat=27&page=1


----------



## Digital Matt (Nov 12, 2005)

Walk around lens is doesn't really give a good description of what you want.  It all depends on what you like to shoot, and what focal length you will use most often.  I think most people deem a walk around lens as a wide angle zoom, that stretches into the short telephoto range.

If you want the "best" in that range, I think you are talking the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

Tamron also makes a 24-70 3.5-5 which I've heard good things about, and certainly it will be much cheaper.


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 12, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Walk around lens is doesn't really give a good description of what you want.


That's very true.

24-70 L is surely great and is really sharp, weather sealed and tought working tool. Also expensive, huge and weighs about a ton... and it does have some barrel distortion, but can still be used in architecture.

Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 has a great rep as a budget lens. You have about 50/50 of getting a sharp copy from what I read on the net. It's stuffed with aspherical glass so it's lighter and much easier to handle. Slower AF and poorer build.



> 50mm f/1.8 (either I or II...not sure. Does anyone know about the generation difference? Build, quality)


One has a metal mount and distance scale. The second one doesn't.



> From the other choices...I still think the 28-105 still comes out on top. Does anyone else have anything in a reasonable price range (under $300) that beats out the 28-105 (1st gen)? I'm open to anything...


Tamron might be better with f/2.8



> Finally, the last one that I'll end up getting is probably the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM after I can get the money together...
> 
> After that...I'll go with a few prime lenses...
> 
> Does anyone else think that there is a better way to approach this?


I'd kill myself if had this setup. 

Slow tele lenses which work in daylight, and no wide angle.


----------



## David A (Nov 13, 2005)

Alright...well, if you were in my position, what would you get (lens-wise)?


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Nov 13, 2005)

I'd get a tokina 17mm - 28mm equiv
35mm f/2 - slight tele
50/1.8 - portrait lens

For a long-ish telephoto I'd either go with 70-200 f/4 L or 70-200 f/2.8 sigma or 135/2 L The sigma would probably be the most versatile, cause you rarely need that shallow DOF of f/2 and it gives you freedom to crop with zoom when it's the hardest to do it by moving yourself.

Maybe I'd add a 24 or 28mm later to the lens collection.


----------



## HoboSyke (Nov 13, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Walk around lens is doesn't really give a good description of what you want. It all depends on what you like to shoot, and what focal length you will use most often. I think most people deem a walk around lens as a wide angle zoom, that stretches into the short telephoto range.
> 
> If you want the "best" in that range, I think you are talking the 24-70 f/2.8 L.
> 
> Tamron also makes a 24-70 3.5-5 which I've heard good things about, and certainly it will be much cheaper.


 
I think Matt sums it up nicely.. I have the 17-85mm IS lens. ITs not a bad lens. But it certainly isnt upto L series quality. I chose the 17-85mm lens over the kit lens, It only cost me a couple hundred more when I bought my 20D.
My next lens I will buy is the 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L canon lens. :mrgreen:


----------



## uberben (Nov 13, 2005)

As I have told you in the past, I have the 28-105 and I love it.  It may not be L quality, but my kit lens was just crap so this is a huge step up.  Primes are great way to go for lower cost sharp lenses.  I was lucky enough to have a friend with the lens i wanted, so i just borrowed it for a day to make sure I like its.  I passed up the 28-135 IS for mainly three reasons:

1.  I was able to buy a awsome copy of the 28-105 for 150 bucks on Fred Miranda.
2.  With the money I saved I was able to buy a 50mm 1.8 and go out for some beers and wings for a couple weeks
3.  I didn't like how big the 28-135 felt as a walk around lens.

Here is a test between the two. http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm

Once you figure out what you want, check out fred miranda's Buy and Sell area on the his forum.  Just post what your looking to buy and people will contact you.


----------



## LizM (Nov 14, 2005)

Look, we all have different ideas on what is "best". The thing is - what will be "best" for Cessium?

It all depends on what he wants to shoot. If he wants "to be ready for anything" then go with a lens that has a wider range. Shooting mostly daytime then don't worry so much about the F stop. Don't like bulky, then go with one of the newer compact lenses (The 28-300 Sigma folds up to like 4" and 4oz). It all depends on what Cessium wants to shoot and what his needs are (not all of our varied idiosyncrasies).

Cessium, take everything posted for what its worth but only you know for sure which ideas fit your needs best.


(Yes, I am ranting this morning.)


----------



## David A (Nov 14, 2005)

LizM said:
			
		

> Look, we all have different ideas on what is "best". The thing is - what will be "best" for Cessium?
> 
> It all depends on what he wants to shoot. If he wants "to be ready for anything" then go with a lens that has a wider range. Shooting mostly daytime then don't worry so much about the F stop. Don't like bulky, then go with one of the newer compact lenses (The 28-300 Sigma folds up to like 4" and 4oz). It all depends on what Cessium wants to shoot and what his needs are (not all of our varied idiosyncrasies).
> 
> ...


 
Thanks...I really appreciate the help...everyone.:thumbup:


----------

