Best walkabout lens for EOS 350D under £600

domino1999

domino1999

Messages
700
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
I'm off to Cornwall for a week and am really in need of a good walkabout lens for my 350D (to replace the kit lens).

My current lenses are:-
  • Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 (std kit lens)
  • Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II (fab!)
  • Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II (impulse buy, but as it turns out a v.poor choice!)
  • Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro (love this lens!)

I don't want to have to lug around my Lowepro with all of these and am after something that has much better IQ and good in low light than the standard kit lens.

My budget is £500 to £600 max.

By the way, I was toying with the idea of going FF in future, but think now that I'll probably go for the 7D instead (once I've saved enough cash!), so lenses for cropped bodies aren't entirely out of the question. Also, I'll probably be buying the Canon 10-22 in future as well.

I'd appreciate any suggestions.

Thanks in advance!
D
 
24-70 for low light such as cathedrals and 24-105 for overall walk around is what I would consider. Both are "L" lens.
 
chouglez said:
24-70 for low light such as cathedrals and 24-105 for overall walk around is what I would consider. Both are "L" lens.
Click to expand...

...thanks, but both of these are more than my budget of £600 :shrug:
 
Take a look at some of the Tamron lenses. I picked up the 28-200 as a cheapy walkabout for my hols. It's not the best build quality in the world, but it's a good lens for what you're after.
 
I'd seriously recommend the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, it's hardly ever off my camera! There's a new version coming out which has IS if you're after that, or there should be some good deals on the older models. The best walkabout for crop sensors is probably the Canon 17-55 f/2.8, and you could get one secondhand for around £600. Although it's a little sharper (only a little though!) and has IS, it's £400 more than the Tamron (secondhand), which was the clear deciding factor.

Alternatively, if you're going for the 10-22 in the near future, you could go for something like the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, and switch lenses if you need something wider. For me, 24mm isn't wide enough for a walkabout, but it's your choice!

Chris
 
Thanks Chris, I'll take a look at these.
 
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS impressed me loads when I rented one
 
I have a reasonable array of lenses, but I still revert back to my 18-200mm f4-5.6 IS as a walkabout. It is very robust, the colours are good and the image stabilisation is superb. It can be a little soft wide open, but the canon software is great at sharpening if needed. It is not very heavy and I just love the range it gives.
 
I rented the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS too and although I also got a 5Dmk2 with a canon 24-70 at the same time. It was really good and worth it
 
Another vote for a tamron 17-50mm f2.8 and with the money you save get the canon 70-300mm IS USM to replace your 75-300mm.
 
another vote for Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS if you can get it 2nd hand, I'll be tempted when I go back to crop. Saying that you might be able to pick up a 24-105mm 2nd hand almost new, as people buying them as kit lens with 5D's tend to sell them on ;)
 
17-55 2.8 IS is the obvious stand out choice. Kerso will get you one for very close to £600.

Kerso is an indpendent importer, well known and respected on here. Gets his stuff from the US, but with full UK warranty. Search his name for loads of good references.

PM him as kerso from here for a price :)
 
The Canon 28-135 is a 'good' lens. Not great like L, but has IS and can provide some very decent pictures when used properly.
It is around half of your budget, so you could hire another, or save for a better L lens.
I have the 10-22 Canon, 18-55 kit and 28-135 IS, I think that the 'next step' from these should be the 24-70, or 25-105 L
Some people think that the 28 is too wide for a walkabout on a crop camera.
 
chris321 said:
That's what I'd do! Oh no, hang on a sec, that's what I did do :D
Click to expand...

Spent a bit of time reading about the Tamron. Certainly looks like a contender, but with the VC version coming out in October I'm now thinking about waiting and possibly getting that instead. In this case I wouldn't have any spare cash left over for the 70-300, plus I'd only have my current lenses available for my imminent Cornwall trip...oh well.

I really hate having to make these decisions!!!

Thanks for the help so far guys. If anyone's got any other suggestions I'd still be interested to hear them.
 
Suggestion.

I think you have the non-IS kit lens. Replace that with an IS version, which is completely redesigned and much better, plus IS. Use the extra cash to get a decent long zoom. 55-250 IS is actually damn good and you'd have change from your total budget, plus two new toys to take away :) Canon have really hit the button with those two lenses at very good prices. Or stretch to the 70-300 IS which is really excellent in every respect.

When you get back, that rather interesting new stabilised Tamron will be around, and so too will the new Canon 15-85 IS which promises to be stunning if you can put up with f/4-5.6. It'll be £500 though. You can sell quality kit on here very easily for good money; you can buy it too (y)
 
domino1999 said:
Spent a bit of time reading about the Tamron. Certainly looks like a contender, but with the VC version coming out in October I'm now thinking about waiting and possibly getting that instead. In this case I wouldn't have any spare cash left over for the 70-300, plus I'd only have my current lenses available for my imminent Cornwall trip
Click to expand...

I moved from the 18-55mm IS kit lens to the tamron, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed the lack of IS in the slightest. I think IS is great on longer lenses, but at this range I think of it as a nice feature, not something that needs to be there.

The only time I could see it being useful is for low light landscapes if you can't use a tripod, but even then it's not going to let you use a very long shutter speed, and you might end up with a bit of blur anyway.

You should be able to find one for around £200 on here, and I seriously doubt you'd lose any money selling it on! I think they'll stay popular when the new model comes out, as there won't be any new secondhand ones for a while, and as a cheaper replacement for the kit lens, it's awesome!
 
chris321 said:
I moved from the 18-55mm IS kit lens to the tamron, and I can honestly say I haven't noticed the lack of IS in the slightest. I think IS is great on longer lenses, but at this range I think of it as a nice feature, not something that needs to be there.

The only time I could see it being useful is for low light landscapes if you can't use a tripod, but even then it's not going to let you use a very long shutter speed, and you might end up with a bit of blur anyway.
Click to expand...

Id have to agree with all of this, Same scenario as myself .. I also got some excellent shots out of it handheld indoors lowlight (disco) that my 18-55 IS kit lens could never have managed ... So for me so far the IS on this lens matters not ...

Im also looking at the Tamron 18-270 for my next lens, this is within you budget and gets a good write up ...
 
yep another vote for a 24-105, you should be able to get one 2nd hand for top of your budget
 
Thanks again for all the great recommendations!

I've ordered myself the Tamron 17-50 for delivery tomorrow. Can't wait to try it out :)
 
Good choice, and your wallet will appreciate it too! Well, untill your next purchase anyway! Welcome to the world of f/2.8 zooming goodness!
 
How does the Tamron 17-50 compare to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX?
 
The23rdman said:
How does the Tamron 17-50 compare to the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX?
Click to expand...

Not used either yet, but when I was reading reviews of the Tammy it seemed most people rated it better than the Siggy in terms of IQ and AF speed.
 
domino1999 said:
Not used either yet, but when I was reading reviews of the Tammy it seemed most people rated it better than the Siggy in terms of IQ and AF speed.
Click to expand...

How does the Tammy compare to the Sigma 17-70, does anybody know - I like the idea of a constant 2.8 instead of what I've got now, and could easily sacrifice the extra focal range, as I've got the 55-250IS for longer stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top