New lens help

Ben:

Ben:

Messages
960
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey everyone.
I'm looking to buy a new lens...
Mainly as a walkabout lens which will stay on the camera (50d) most of the time.

I currently have a Sigma 17-70mm non os.
50mm 1.8
100-400mm L
Would look to sell the sigma.

High quality. Fast. Budget - whatever is required for the 'best' (second hand is fine)

I'm hoping to travel some of Europe later this year and want something wide for landscape shots.

Thinking about...

17-55mm f2.8 IS
24-70mm L f2.8
24-105mm L f4 IS

Concerned about the crop factor of the 50d, not sure if 24mm will be wide enough for capturing lovely mountainous views :\
So wondering about the Canon/Sigma 10-20(22) and keep the Sigma 17-70 but worried I won't use the wide angle much other than travelling.

Any advice or ideas would be great!
Thanks
 
Last edited:
If you don't feel the need to wider than 17 often then I'd go 17-55. That would seem to be the best fit- you lose a bit at the long end but you gain f2.8 and IS and it is a sharp lens.

For what you have described I would say 24 is going to be too long. The 17-55 will give you the most flexibility.
 
I've just ordered a Sigma 17-50 for a similar purpose. It gets good write-ups compared to both Canon and Nikon equivalents, and it's a darn sight cheaper:thumbs:
 
Dr_O said:
If you don't feel the need to wider than 17 often then I'd go 17-55. That would seem to be the best fit- you lose a bit at the long end but you gain f2.8 and IS and it is a sharp lens.

For what you have described I would say 24 is going to be too long. The 17-55 will give you the most flexibility.
Click to expand...

That's a good point! I'd only go wider for landscapes which isn't going to be very often compared to other uses.

Wookee said:
I've just ordered a Sigma 17-50 for a similar purpose. It gets good write-ups compared to both Canon and Nikon equivalents, and it's a darn sight cheaper:thumbs:
Click to expand...

:O I didn't even realise sigma did a comparable lens! You're right, it is a fair bit cheaper and still with OS and f2.8.

Any ideas how the image quality compares to the Canon?

Thanks!
 
Ben: said:
:O I didn't even realise sigma did a comparable lens! You're right, it is a fair bit cheaper and still with OS and f2.8.

Any ideas how the image quality compares to the Canon?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Here's one comparison, but I have read a few that all say the same thing more or less.
 
Well that was fairly quick and easy haha. I think I'm sold on the Sigma!
Unless anyone can suggest an alternative?
Thanks again Luke.
 
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC.

Very sharp and reasonably priced!
 
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS would be my choice, ive had one an my 40d and was awesome

Andy
 
Just throwing another option in...
If money wasn't an issue would a 24-70 L and canon 10-22 be the best setup to cover all areas?
 
Ben: said:
Just throwing another option in...
If money wasn't an issue would a 24-70 L and canon 10-22 be the best setup to cover all areas?
Click to expand...
Not if you take a lot of photos where you have to keep changing lenses.

Another to throw into the pot as a good all rounder is the 15-85IS. Not as fast as the f2.8 but very capable lens with better zoom coverage and excellent IS. It stays on our 7D almost permanently.
 
Ben: said:
Well that was fairly quick and easy haha. I think I'm sold on the Sigma!
Unless anyone can suggest an alternative?
Thanks again Luke.
Click to expand...

Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Prime lenses often get over-looked for walkabout and everyday use, but not having to choose the focal length is one decision less between seeing the shot and taking it.

Not for everyone, but worth considering. When travelling it's often the only lens I will use, and frequently the only lens I will take. Discussion here.
 
arad85 said:
Not if you take a lot of photos where you have to keep changing lenses.

Another to throw into the pot as a good all rounder is the 15-85IS. Not as fast as the f2.8 but very capable lens with better zoom coverage and excellent IS. It stays on our 7D almost permanently.
Click to expand...

When travelling around mountains etc I would keep the wide angle on. And only change to the 24-70 for general walking about.

Quickly looked at the 15-85 and I think I'd always wish it had a fixed aperture, seems a bit slow for the money.

Thanks for the suggestion though.
 
Alastair said:
Sigma 30mm f/1.4

Prime lenses often get over-looked for walkabout and everyday use, but not having to choose the focal length is one decision less between seeing the shot and taking it.

Not for everyone, but worth considering. When travelling it's often the only lens I will use, and frequently the only lens I will take. Discussion here.
Click to expand...

I think I'd feel too restricted with a 30mm prime and on a crop wouldn't be wide enough.
Thanks :)
 
Still can't decide :/

Been reading some reviews on the 24-105 suggesting lens creep and errors etc
The 24-70 is heavy at about 1kg and not ideal for travelling.

I want to get the best...but can't find it.

Help please :'(
 
DoctorBob said:
Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 EX & Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS. Job done ;)
Might even almost stretch to your budget if you get lucky 2nd hand..



In that case you need a bigger budget.
Click to expand...

Should have updated the OP. Budget can be bigger if needed.
I think 10mm and 17mm would be too close. Where as 10-20 and 24-something would give me a better range.
There's me saying the 24-70 is too heavy but it's half the weight of the 100-400 so it might not be too bad. I think I need to go and hold one to really make up my mind.
 
I got a 24-105 f4 L with my 5D2 and it spends as much time on my 7D as it does on my 5D2. It's a great walkabout lens on either camera and gives great IQ on both bodies. Although, if you need wider than the 24 you might be best off keeping the 17-70 you have already as well.
 
Ben: said:
Think I want to stick with Canon tbh.
Click to expand...

Why? Don't discount 3rd party lenses, you'll do yourself a disservice!
 
Ben: said:
Should have updated the OP. Budget can be bigger if needed.
I think 10mm and 17mm would be too close. Where as 10-20 and 24-something would give me a better range.
There's me saying the 24-70 is too heavy but it's half the weight of the 100-400 so it might not be too bad. I think I need to go and hold one to really make up my mind.
Click to expand...

10mm and 17mm are massively different! When you go that wide even 1mm makes a noticeable difference.
 
Thanks Stuart, good to hear you're pleased with the performance of the 70-105.
For travelling, I personally would want to go wider than 24mm. Therefore I think a Canon 10-22mm or Sigma 10-20mm is a must.
Jim my point about 10 and 17 being too close. I meant if I had a 17-55, 17mm wouldn't be wide enough. And still needing something wider. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

So... A 10-22(20) is a must.
Which just leaves me with a gap of 20 to 100mm.
 
Last edited:
Ah see what you mean! I can recommend the Canon 10-22, an awesome lens.
 
odd jim said:
Ah see what you mean! I can recommend the Canon 10-22, an awesome lens.
Click to expand...

Great thanks. Just a mid range to decide now.
24-105 fills the gap perfectly, lighter, smaller, IS. But concerned about errors :/
24-70 only has f2.8 as an advantage.
 
Ben: said:
Still can't decide :/

Been reading some reviews on the 24-105 suggesting lens creep and errors etc
The 24-70 is heavy at about 1kg and not ideal for travelling.

I want to get the best...but can't find it.

Help please :'(
Click to expand...

I don't think there is a 'perfect' walkabout lens for what you want. It a compromise. I have a 24-70L and sod the weight, it does for me on a 50D (which is not exactly light on its own). However its not discreet. If I want 'discreet' I use a compact. If the lens seems heavy, go to the gym and build up your muscles! the 10-22mm is OK, but I use mine mostly for tight shots, not landscapes.
 
Last edited:
I haven't yet felt the weight of the lens, but it doesn't particularly bother me having walked around all day with the 100-400.
Beginning to think the price and extra length of the 24-105 might win it. And the fact I can't find any 24-70s at a bargain price.
 
Last edited:
I find my 24-105 wide enough for outdoors, usually, but for indoors it's no good; the 17-55 is much better indoors, but will also do outdoors well. I wouldn't want to go narrower than 20mm for indoors most of the time.
On full frame this would be different, obviously.


TBH I would still stick with the Sigma 10-20 even if it and the Canon 10-22 were the same price.. and the Canon's twice as much.
 
Last edited:
DoctorBob said:
I find my 24-105 wide enough for outdoors, usually, but for indoors it's no good; the 17-55 is much better indoors, but will also do outdoors well. I wouldn't want to go narrower than 20mm for indoors most of the time.
On full frame this would be different, obviously.

TBH I would still stick with the Sigma 10-20 even if it and the Canon 10-22 were the same price.. and the Canon's twice as much.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this.
Are you using it on a crop sensor?
I'm not worried about the wide angle lens atm, as I will get whatever I can find at the time. But the sigma is a better price for the amount I'll use it :)
 
ANOTHER OPTION...Forget that. Was going to say Canon 17-40mm f4 L

But feel it would be too short.

This is driving me crazy haha
 
Last edited:
Ben: said:
ANOTHER OPTION...Forget that. Was going to say Canon 17-40mm f4 L

But feel it would be too short.

This is driving me crazy haha
Click to expand...

No don't bother with that, the efs 17-55 is better in every respect bar build. The 17-40L is designed really as an ultra wide for FF bodies.

Personally I'd get the Tamron. It's 99% as good as the Canon (as long as you take IS out of the equation!) but for a third of the price.
 
Last edited:
Ben: said:
Thanks for this.
Are you using it on a crop sensor?
I'm not worried about the wide angle lens atm, as I will get whatever I can find at the time. But the sigma is a better price for the amount I'll use it :)
Click to expand...

Yep, on the 60D. I'm sure on full frame 24mm is plenty wide enough for indoors (as it'll be roughly equivalent to 15/16mm on crop sensors).. TBH I think part of the reason I'm still clinging onto my 24-105L is the niggling desire to get a 5DII!

odd jim said:
No don't bother with that, the efs 17-55 is better in every respect bar build. The 17-40L is designed really as an ultra wide for FF bodies.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I've got a 50D and went for the 10-22 and 24-105 lenses. The 24-105 is mostly on my camera but the 10-22 is so light it just stays in the bag for when required. Both are great lenses, just beware of a cpl filter slightly obscuring the corners at 10mm.
In my bag I carry the 10-22, 24-105 on the 50D, the 70-200 f2.8 IS, 100-400 and 50mm f1.4. Chuck in a flash gun and extra batteries, accessories and the bag feels heavy but it's a decent backpack so you don't notice it when wearing it.
 
Thanks for all your help guys!
Nice to hear lots of you are pleased with the 24-105 :D
As I've just bought one from on here.
 
Byker28i said:
I've got a 50D and went for the 10-22 and 24-105 lenses. The 24-105 is mostly on my camera but the 10-22 is so light it just stays in the bag for when required. Both are great lenses, just beware of a cpl filter slightly obscuring the corners at 10mm.
Click to expand...

Get an ultra thin CPL, you need a 77mm that will fit a 10-22, but it doesn't make a circular vignette.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top