Good, sharp walkabout lens

ab2012

ab2012

Messages
667
Name
alan
Edit My Images
Yes
For Canonon 450D,550d, or 50 D.Any recommendations please?
Another one of those threads,I know.Sorry.
 
I have the 17-55 F2.8 IS, I still use my 70-200mm f/4L the most though out of preference.
 
ab2012 said:
For Canonon 450D,550d, or 50 D.Any recommendations please?
Another one of those threads,I know.Sorry.
Click to expand...

As above, you've got a lot of options, and it completely depends on your budget. My summary:

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - Expensive, but the best out there. If money isn't an issue, but if and forget about the rest. Unless you're thinking of moving to full-frame in the future, but even then it holds it's value well.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - Slightly less sharp than the canon, but a fraction of the price. The one I had before I went full-frame. Sigma also do one that isn't quite held in such high regard, but pretty good nonetheless from what I've heard.

Canon 24-70, or 24-105 - Great on FF, but for me anyway 24mm wasn't really wide enough on a crop sensor. If you have an ultra-wide lens and don't mind changing over fairly regularly, then they might be an option.

Canon 17-40 f/4 - I still don't really get why people recommend this lens for crop sensor, but I guess it's an option. Priced similarly to the 17-55, except it has a 15mm shorter long end, no IS, and is a whole stop slower. Sure it has weather sealing, but for that you'll need a UV filter and a weather sealed body, which doesn't include the ones you've asked about. Possibly an option if you're going FF in the future to take the place of an UWA, but what you're really paying for is the larger image circle it creates, which is somewhat wasted on a crop sensor camera.

Think that just about covers it, all just in my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree :)

Chris
 
Last edited:
17-55 or the 15-85 is also very sharp with fantastic range, and usefully cheaper. Only f/3.5-5.6 though.
 
so these would be ok for general landscapes?which is what I include in "walkabout" lens.
 
ab2012 said:
so these would be ok for general landscapes?which is what I include in "walkabout" lens.
Click to expand...

Generally, the wider the better for landscape - which means the 10-22. But the 15-85 is usefully a bit wider than anything else in the walkabout range. Might be all you need.

If you don't need lower f/numbers, 15-85 is a really good choice. Maybe add a 50 1.8 for £75 for the odd time that you do.
 
Blasted said:
remember the 17-55 is an EF-S lens, the others focal range will change on a crop sensor.
Click to expand...
No they won't. The EF-S set at 24 will be exactly the same field of view as the 24-105 set at 24 on the same camera. The focal length of a lens is just that - its focal length.

What you do get is a relative multiplier. That is, a 50mm lens on an APS-C (xxxD/xxD/7D) sensor is equivalent field of view to an 80mm lens on a full frame camera. The fact that some lenses are EF and some are EF-S just means they have been designed to have a different sensor coverage (the EF lenses are able to cover a larger sensor with light).

I'm with Richard on the recommendations though. I think 24mm on a crop body is too narrow - heck there are times 12mm on a full frame is too narrow!!
 
If you cant afford the canon 17-55 then grab the tamron 17-50 non VC, sharp as a sharp thing, light but robust and wont disapoint
 
non VC? Translation, please.Thanks.
Some really good suggestions here,though the "relative multiplier" theme loses me in the muddy pit that belongs to the beginner :)
 
ab2012 said:
non VC? Translation, please.Thanks.
Some really good suggestions here,though the "relative multiplier" theme loses me in the muddy pit that belongs to the beginner :)
Click to expand...

'VC' stands for 'vibration compensation' or something, it's Tamron's word for image stabilisation. I'm not entirely convinced of the usefulness of IS on this focal range, but some people like it..... The non-vc version is cheaper, and although older is said to be sharper.

As for the 'relative multiplier' bit, have a read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

So for example, a 17mm lens on a full frame camera is very wide, but a 17mm lens on a crop sensor camera, because it effectively enlarges just the centre of the image, appears to be a more normal walkabout focal length. This is true whether the lens is specially designed for crop sensors or not, those 'just for crop' lenses just create a smaller image circle. Confused yet? :D
 
Thanks,Chris:)
I obviously need time to digest all this. :)
For the time being I'll remain confused.BUT this thread is now in my favourites.
 
ab2012 said:
non VC? Translation, please.Thanks.
Some really good suggestions here,though the "relative multiplier" theme loses me in the muddy pit that belongs to the beginner :)
Click to expand...

Non-VC means without Vibration Control - Tamron's version of image stabilisation. There are two versions of that lens, with and without VC, but unfortunately the addition of the VC component has required a complete lens redesign and the VC version is rather disappointing.

Image stabilisation is undoubtedly a big advantage when hand-holding longer exposures but the benefit decreases with focal length and many people get by okay without it on standard range zooms. In fact, it's not often fitted to wide-angles at all.

The 'focal length multiplier' refers to the crop factor of the camera. Most cameras have a smaller sensor than the old 35mm film format (known as full frame) and the effect is that if you fit a lens of a given focal length on a crop format camera, you get a narrower field of view compared to full frame. The effect is as if you had fitted a longer lens to the full frame camera, so the focal length appears to be multiplied.

Don't worry about it, it's only relevant when comparing the same lens on different format cameras and anyway, most of the lenses you're looking at are specifically for crop cameras anyway and won't work properly on full frame. There are optical benefits to doing this, so you get more for your money.
 
neil_g said:
budget??

add to the list the sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC "macro"
Click to expand...

This is the lens that I am using at the moment, but that's only because I dont have the cash for an 17-55mm IS. The 18-50mm is a good lens but is only really 'tack sharp' from f4, but don't let that put you off. f2.8 is definitely sharper than f3.5-5.6 on the kit 18-55mm IS, and the lens is a constant F2.8 meaning it has two stops more at 50mm.
 
chris321 said:
As above, you've got a lot of options, and it completely depends on your budget. My summary:

Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS - Expensive, but the best out there. If money isn't an issue, but if and forget about the rest. Unless you're thinking of moving to full-frame in the future, but even then it holds it's value well.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - Slightly less sharp than the canon, but a fraction of the price. The one I had before I went full-frame. Sigma also do one that isn't quite held in such high regard, but pretty good nonetheless from what I've heard.

Canon 24-70, or 24-105 - Great on FF, but for me anyway 24mm wasn't really wide enough on a crop sensor. If you have an ultra-wide lens and don't mind changing over fairly regularly, then they might be an option.

Canon 17-40 f/4 - I still don't really get why people recommend this lens for crop sensor, but I guess it's an option. Priced similarly to the 17-55, except it has a 15mm shorter long end, no IS, and is a whole stop slower. Sure it has weather sealing, but for that you'll need a UV filter and a weather sealed body, which doesn't include the ones you've asked about. Possibly an option if you're going FF in the future to take the place of an UWA, but what you're really paying for is the larger image circle it creates, which is somewhat wasted on a crop sensor camera.

Think that just about covers it, all just in my opinion, I'm sure others will disagree :)

Chris
Click to expand...

Good post....
 
for a crop sensor, either the 17-55 2.8 IS (faster) or the 15-85 (better range, and that extra 2mm of width is great for landscape work, but it is a bit slower) are excellent lenses.
 
Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS
expensive, yes.I see Kerso does this lens.Would it be fine on the 450D, for example?The lens would cost more than the 450dplus kit lens.But from what I've gleaned from here is that the lens is the important bit.It's never ending.:)
 
You've gotta go for the 17-55 2.8 IS, ive just brought one about 6 weeks ago and i'll never look back, its super sharp in the center and corners, and focuses very very fast, also the 2.8 + IS is awesome in low light situations......

Andy
 
Just gone through the same decision, and ended up with a Canon 15-85mm - seems great so far, very happy with it, and the extra focal range at both ends is a noticeable advantage over the kit 18-55mm. Was £500 from Park Cameras in the brand new "unboxed" version.
 
I have recently got the 15-85. Initial shots look very promising.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top