A great all-round lens??

Peach

Peach

Messages
294
Name
Sharleigh
Edit My Images
Yes
Hello!

Just wanting advice on an upgrade on the standard 18-55, price wise looking at £300-£400. I'm pretty new to lens' to be honest but been snapping away for years... I fancy something that it just a good all-rounder .... if that's possible!!

Many thanks!
 
Peach said:
Hello!

Just wanting advice on an upgrade on the standard 18-55, price wise looking at £300-£400. I'm pretty new to lens' to be honest but been snapping away for years... I fancy something that it just a good all-rounder .... if that's possible!!

Many thanks!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by an all rounder. A replacement for the 18-55mm or as suggested something like the 18-200mm. Personally I would recommend you something like the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 great walkabout lens and definitely a step up from the kit lens.

As for the Hyperzooms as lenses like the 18-200mm are called, they promise the world and delivery very little. Optics won't be much better than your kit lens. Unfortunately with the SLR system, these no one lens for all jobs, that's why its an interchangeable lens system, having the right lens for the job.

So if you want say a lens that covers wide angle to telephoto, then unfortunately you're looking at 2 lenses, 17-50mm + 70-200mm
 
Cheers guys! ... I'm quite new to lens' so you'll have to excuse me.

Wide angled seems the way to go for me .... really not bothered about a zoom, I have a basic one (70-300) and it's awkward to use, probably 'cause it's heavy.

I want something thats going to give me detail/sharpness.

Hope thats cleared things up

Thank you :)
 
For wide angle I've got the Sigma 10 -20 and I think it's a great lens.

As has been said above there isn't really a great all rounder but I've now got a reasonable all round selection of lenses that covers my main interests of landscape and wildlife/nature.

Sigma 10 -20 great for landscapes, architecture and quirky portraits.

Canon EF 28 -135 IS USM nice walkabout lens, if I'm not sure which lens to put on this one goes on.

canon EF 100 IS USM Macro excellent macro lens but also pin sharp and great for portraits.

canon EF 100 - 400 L IS USM my latest acquisition which gives me more reach for wildlife but I also use it for anything where I need to get closer but can't.

I've collected these over 5 years as I've worked out which direction I wanted my photography to go.

Mike
 
Peach said:
Cheers guys! ... I'm quite new to lens' so you'll have to excuse me.

Wide angled seems the way to go for me .... really not bothered about a zoom, I have a basic one (70-300) and it's awkward to use, probably 'cause it's heavy.

I want something thats going to give me detail/sharpness.

Hope thats cleared things up

Thank you :)
Click to expand...

If you want the ability to go wide angle, plus have a walkaround general lens, then have a look at the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 there's 2 versions MKI (£330) and MKII (£430 with Image Stabilisation)
 
pete.rush said:
If you want the ability to go wide angle, plus have a walkaround general lens, then have a look at the tamron 17-50mm f2.8 there's 2 versions MKI (£330) and MKII (£430 with Image Stabilisation)
Click to expand...


Just out of interest .... How much do Tamron and Sigma lens' compare to the 'official' Canon ones....

Are Canon worth spending extra money on? or it is just cosmetic?
 
Another vote here for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8, used on my D90 this is a great lens and i highly recommend it, very sharp with great bokeh.

I also have the sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 which again i highly recommend but it has its purpose and as a general walk about i dont think its the one to have.

Interestingly both these lenses are built to a much higher standard compared to my old d40 kit lens the 18-55 or my existing nikon 55-200vr, the old 18-55 feels very flimsy and more like something you'd find in a cracker in comparison....and here was me thinking before purchasing any that 3rd party lenes would be cheap and cheerful

Mike
 
Havnt tried one (yet) but the Tamron 17-50mm is very high praised. Super sharp and under £300. Its a great walkabout lens on a crop body.
 
Andy said:
Havnt tried one (yet) but the Tamron 17-50mm is very high praised. Super sharp and under £300. Its a great walkabout lens on a crop body.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Andy.

Grimsby eh? ... I used to live there.
 
I thought all lens`s were round. Seriously though, it`s like I said, to each his own.
 
Sharleigh, I think you need to be more clear about what you want, and what your current 18-55 kit lens isn't doing for you.

And I think you are maybe misunderstanding the term zoom. A zoom lens is one that changes focal length, as opposed to a prime lens, which is fixed at just one. There are long zooms like your 70-300mm, short zooms which is maybe what you are looking for around 10-22mm, and standard zooms inbetween like your kit lens 18-55mm. Then there are super-zooms that go from around 18-200mm, but they are heavier and expensive, and not quite so good optically.

From what you've said, I'm not sure if you want a better quality lens to replace your standard kit zoom, or a shorter wide-angle zoom. The camera brand lenses are better than similar third party version, but more expensive. That means better optically and better build quality, plus better resale value. But they are more expensive and often the performance is pretty close.

To replace your kit lens, the obvious choice is the Canon 17-55 2.8 IS. It's got the lot, but is expensive. They sell used for about £600. I also like the new Canon 15-85 IS - it's around your budget and has a fantastically useful range IMHO. V sharp, but only f/3.5-5.6.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 gets good reviews but doesn't have image stabilisation. The newer version which does have stabilisation is not as good optically, from what I've seen.

If you want to go wide, Canon 10-22 is the best. Excellent lens. They sell used for under £400. Sigma 10-20 seems to be the most popular cheaper alternative.
 
I found the 28-135mm canon lens excellent for the money. Never took it off until I got the chance to upgrade to an L series lens.
 
As others have said the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM is great. I had one when I had my 40D and only parted whit it because I went FF and it wasn't compatible.

Before I got the 17-55, I had an Tamron 17-50 and Canon 17-85 IS USM. The IQ and speed of the Tamron was miles ahead of the 17-85 and the IS wasn't that much of a miss. The auto focus could hunt a bit in low light though.

If you are limited by funds I would say try the Tamron, its well built and the IQ very good. You'll be able to sell it on for a reasonable price too. In fact you could probably pick up a used one for reasonable money.

Ultimately it was the lack of full time manual focus and the AF speed that led me to the Canon 17-55. I ended up trading the Tamron and the Canon 17-85 against a used 17-55 from LCE.
 
Thanks for all the advice!

I think I'm going to save just a bit extra and go for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8...
It's had great reviews and will definitely be worth the money for what results you get.
 
Peach said:
Cheers guys! ... I'm quite new to lens' so you'll have to excuse me.

Wide angled seems the way to go for me .... really not bothered about a zoom, I have a basic one (70-300) and it's awkward to use, probably 'cause it's heavy.

I want something thats going to give me detail/sharpness.

Hope thats cleared things up

Thank you :)
Click to expand...

If you like serious wide angles the Sigma 10-20 is a beast, with a midrange prime (30 or 50?) you get a great duo. Without though you are kindly left with only a very wide angle. I mean, even at 20mm you practically have to be up the subject's nose to photograph it. The good thing is, it's a nice sharp lens and even harsh crops won't lose you too much IQ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top