I still need a general use lens!

Skyline On Fire

Skyline On Fire

Messages
1,391
Name
Luke
Edit My Images
Yes
Okay i got my 7D about 2 months ago now, along with a 70-200. Fantastic wonderful kit and I love it. But for general use, Ive still been using a 50mm f1.8 and a 18-55 IS kit lens from my 1000d.

The IQ with the 18-55 isn't really doing the camera justice, so I need a general walkabout lens slash travel lens. Any recommendations?

The only option I've really seen is the 17-55f2.8 Canon... Any preferably cheaper options? I have no intention of going full frame for quite a while so EF-S is fine.

Thanks guys.
 
You could look at the Tamron 17-50 or Sigma 18-50, both a lot cheaper than the 17-55.
 
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Yum!
 
AndyWest said:
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Yum!
Click to expand...

This. I love this lens. Performance-to-value is extremely good. It's a great lens regardless of price but the fact that it's so much cheaper than its rivals makes it massively tempting
 
someone posted sharp, tight crops of images the other day from the Tamron 17-50 - wide open I think - that were honestly very very sharp - I was massively impressed.
 
Alot of people forget about the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8. You can pick them up for a bargain second hand. Picked up a minter for £240 on ebay. Some of the reviews are a bit iffy wide open but almost all of the reviews are of the nikon mount. One review had nikon and canon side by side and they were basically different lenses with the canon coming out well on top.
 
trencheel303 said:
someone posted sharp, tight crops of images the other day from the Tamron 17-50 - wide open I think - that were honestly very very sharp - I was massively impressed.
Click to expand...

Ahh that must have been me then!! :LOL:
 
If you're really cheap, get a 28-70mm lens. Forget the wide end, it's overrated anyway.
 
Im not really after really cheap, and if I have to, I'l stump up the cash for the Canon 17-55 f2.8

Weight and size aren't a big deal to me at all. I have never brought or used a non Canon (or Nikon in the case of my film days) lens, so I've always been skeptical. the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 looks good, and looks great with that price... I'm just cautious of the fact its a Sigma I guess... Silly concern or justified?
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Im not really after really cheap, and if I have to, I'l stump up the cash for the Canon 17-55 f2.8

Weight and size aren't a big deal to me at all. I have never brought or used a non Canon (or Nikon in the case of my film days) lens, so I've always been skeptical. the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 looks good, and looks great with that price... I'm just cautious of the fact its a Sigma I guess... Silly concern or justified?
Click to expand...

Why are you afraid of Sigma lens? I have Sigma 10-20, Sigma Macro 105, and Sigma 18-50 and I find them to be just as good as My Nikon lens.
 
Canon 17-55 and don't be a cheapskate.

Nothing wrong with Sigma or Tamron. They're just not as good. Whether or not the Canon is worth the extra to you, well, only you can answer that. For me, it was.
 
24-105L IS ............... you're gonna end up buying it ............. so save time and get it now
 
Well, you've had it all in this thread - if you want a f2.8 kit lens replacement you've been told about the Sigma, Tamron or Tokina (personally I'd choose in that order - I have the Sigma and tried the Tamron (noisy slow focus)) and also that the Canon 17-55 is the real pick of the bunch if you are feeling like spending more money. Remember all of those are for crop bodies only.

Lastly, the suggestion of the Canon 24-105 is a different approach. It does make a pretty good walkabout lens, maybe even on a crop body. I'd say it wasn't a direct replacement for the kit lens like the others above are though.
 
They are all decent lenses, but in my opinion just not as good as the Canon 17-55

One of those things where would you always have wished you bought the Canon?

If you think that might be the case, buy it and save the money you would spend on something else only to take a loss later
 
jim_j said:
Bought an EF-S 15-85 recently, very nice.
Click to expand...

I forgot about that one! It tends to get overlooked because it's only f/3.5-5.6, which is a long way from f/2.8. But it has IS and is a v nice lens. Very sharp and really good range - 15mm is usefully wider than 17-18mm (y)
 
Broric said:
They're not the same lenses are they? Once's the EX Macro and one's the OS HSM (I don't know the difference :shrug:) but Clifton have the one in the link above at £300-odd so similar to WHX but more expensive than one-stop digital who have it at £287.
Click to expand...

The one I gave the link to is the OS HSM. This is the lens with the Optical Stabiliser, It will also autofocus on a camera which doesn't have a built in motor such as the Nikon D40. I think you are getting confused as the EX Macro is the macro version which would enable you to take very close up photos. For a walk around lens though the one linked to above is ideal, and you can still get as close in as approx 12 ins.
 
I tried one of the 18-50mm OS and it was dreadful, really soft and just couldn't get a decent shot with it
Took it back for a refund, shop agreed it was very poor,might have just been unlucky though

Had a 18-50 EX f/2.8 a while back and that was pretty good although not nearly as nice as the Canon 17-55mm

My other favourite in this sort of range was a Sigma 17-70, just wish it had been f/2.8 above its very widest end.
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
The one I gave the link to is the OS HSM. This is the lens with the Optical Stabiliser, It will also autofocus on a camera which doesn't have a built in motor such as the Nikon D40. I think you are getting confused as the EX Macro is the macro version which would enable you to take very close up photos. For a walk around lens though the one linked to above is ideal, and you can still get as close in as approx 12 ins.
Click to expand...

It's also not a constant 2.8 aperture.
 
HoppyUK said:
Perhaps to use longer shutter speeds hand held? Just a wild guess.
Click to expand...

Yep. Well its going to be my walkabout lens, and I do a lot of traveling etc... And Id rather not lug a tripod around constantly to set up for evening shots etc... And high ISO isn't always desirable.
 
Skyline On Fire said:
Yep. Well its going to be my walkabout lens, and I do a lot of traveling etc... And Id rather not lug a tripod around constantly to set up for evening shots etc... And high ISO isn't always desirable.
Click to expand...

Ah, of course. I was watching the Genius of Photography and the section about street photography; and somehow I associated "walk about" to "street photography", where I thought IS might not be as useful.

Damn heat... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top