an all rounder?

Do you have a budget?
 
sigma 17-70 F/2.8-4 is probs the best you'll get for under £200, slightly more and you could get the sigma 18-50 F/2.8, however, if you could stretch to £550/£600 then the 254-105 F/4 would be (and was) my choice :)
 
Well at the moment, I only use Canon lenses so I can't help with Sigma.
I decided to replace my 450D kit lens (18-55mm IS) lens with a 17-85mm IS USM lens.
I had a play with one as my stepdaughters hubby got one with his 40D and I liked the idea of the extra focal length.
I use it as my main walk about lens as I felt my 50-250mm wasn't wide enough and I find it well suited for landscapes as well as a bit more zoom.
The 17mm-85mm IS USM can be picked up on Ebay for £180-£200.
Obviously you might not need / want an IS lens
Or perhaps stick with your 18-55mm kit lens and invest in something with a 250/300mm length?
 
All rounder lenses are rarely good at anything - Jack of all trades, master of none - but they can be convenient to save carrying and changing a load of lenses. Personally I would not bother with such a lens.

To be honest your nifty should make a pretty good portrait lens as it is.

As for landscapes, ideally you'll be looking for a lens that cover the focal length range from around 10mm-20mm and I don't think you'll get much in that range for your budget. The best thing, probably, would be to get the new 18-55 IS kit lens, which will run you just over £100. IQ is supposed to be a step up from the old kit lens and you'll benefit from IS too....

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod597.html

Another favourite upgrade, at low cost (but not as low as £200) is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The advantage there is great IQ and the fast, constant f/2.8 aperture, but no IS...

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod250.html

The bottom line is that a landscape lens should be wide and a portrait lens should typically be medium-long (around 50mm-85mm on a crop body) and have a fast aperture - f/2.8 or faster. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM would be a cracking choice, and an improvement on the 50mm but it is the wrong side of £200 and will not help you at the wide angle end at all. Basically, for £200 I do not see a worthwhile solution to your needs, other than getting the new IS kit lens for ~£100 to replace and improve upon your current standard zoom. Put the £100 you save towards a decent budget telephoto zoom like the 55-250 IS or a specialist (portrait) telephoto like the 85/1.8.

You cannot buy a lens on the cheap that will do wide and long and fast. In fact, you can't buy such a lens at any price.
 
Sigma do an 18-200mm OS zoom. It won't be perfect and will probably distort at either extreme as well as being a little soft but as a single lens solution it could be the answer. They do a non-OS version as well - and Tamron do an 18-250.

For landscap[es and portraits, something that goes from 18-70 or so should be enough - again, at your budget, you're probably looking at the Sigma or Tamron ranges (or 2nd hand).
 
hashcake said:
I decided to replace my 450D kit lens (18-55mm IS) lens with a 17-85mm IS USM lens.
Click to expand...

I actually started out with a 30D and 17-85 lens. I always thought my copy was a fine example but a lot of people do slag the lens off for heavy barrel distortion at the wide end and some chromatic aberration, which I've never noticed from my lens. At £319 brand new I assumed it was outside the budget. Here's a sample from my 17-85...

2865301512_eb64278bec_o.jpg


This was shot in raw and converted to JPEG in Lightroom 2. The only manual tweaking was to adjust white balance.
 
Nod said:
Sigma do an 18-200mm OS zoom. It won't be perfect and will probably distort at either extreme as well as being a little soft but as a single lens solution it could be the answer. They do a non-OS version as well - and Tamron do an 18-250.
Click to expand...

I got a Tamron 18-250mm as a walkabout lens and i've been well chuffed with it. Some really good results considering what it is.

If you're anywhere near the wycombe area you're welcombe to drop by and try it out. You can also check out my website where you'll find a fair few photo's taken with this lens on either a 400d or 40d body. Website addy is in my sig.
 
I had a similar conundrum a couple of weeks back.
Choices were:

Canon 17-85 IS USM (£190, second hand - ebay)
Sigma 17-70
Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (£170 second hand - forums)

I had a play with all three. I really liked the IS on the canon, but went with the Tamron in the end - the f2.8 meant I could take shots at a faster shutter speed, which kind of balanced out the IS. Also it meant that moving objects were much sharper than either of the others.

Although, i also have a 35-105mm for mid range stuff, so the Tamron may not be suitable with it's zoom range. Up to you of course :)
 
Mark.A said:
Another vote for Sigma 17-70mm. (y)
Click to expand...

The problem I have with lenses like this is that as you become more experienced at photography, and want to shoot manual, you really come to appreciate the value of a constant wide aperture (like f/2.8) throughout the zoom range, so that your exposure doesn't keep changing as you zoom in and out. This lens has a great range as a do it all to cover from landscapes to portraits, but the f/2.8-f/4.5 kills it for me.

Shooting manual is not some snobbish/superior method of exposing. It has very real practical advantages in certain conditions, basically wherever the lighting is constant from one shot to the next, and especially when the tonality of your subject is changing a lot under that constant lighting source.

The lack of constant aperture is my biggest reason that the Canon 17-85 gets the thumbs down from me, despite being thoroughly pleased with mine as a first lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top