What canon lens

[joel222]

After selling 90% of my gear years ago, I’ve decided to have another dabble in this great hobby. I did keep a few bits including an old crop sensor body with a 50mm 1.8, 18-55, and a Tamron 24-70 2.8 that I had initially paired up with my full frame set up. Im not keen on the Tamron on the crop sensor so have advertised it and would like to replace it with something. What would you recommend for an everyday lens that’s versatile and suited to a crop sensor? The best pairing I had with this body was an 15-85, just wondered if there were any better options?

 

[Ian Grant]

I have just largely retired a Tamron 28-775mm SP F2.8 lens bought over 25 years ago, I used it alongside a Tamron 17-35mm SP f2.8-4 on a 300D then 50D. More recently on a 5D MkIV.

To be fair the 28-75mm Tamron had very heavy professional use, shooting rock concerts. As a standard zoom though the 17-35mm was my main lens on the 300D, and 50D for other work, and still will b when I used the 50D.

For the full frame 5D MkIV the 28-75mm Tamron was ideal, but it hunts at times around 70-75mm, and has I've replaced it with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 USM, it's a fantastic lens, outstanding performance, I found one in excellent condition second hand. For full frame I prefer 24-70mm to 28-75mm but I would agree less practical on a crop sensor camera.

Personally I'm mostly a large format film shooter, and so match focal lengths and coverage to suit the film format. But we have to think the same way with Full frame and crop sensor digital cameras, and lenses.

ian

 

[Phil V]

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is effectively a 24-70L equivalent on crop, the old Sigma version was crap IMO (only lens I ever tested and sent back) but the Tamron is supposed to be better.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is effectively a 24-70L equivalent on crop, the old Sigma version was crap IMO (only lens I ever tested and sent back) but the Tamron is supposed to be better.

I remember buying a Sigma zoom in 1976, I guess 80-200. The first didn't focus at Infinity, the replacement kept focussing and came apart, the third just wasn't sharp, this wasn't after use, they were brand new. I've not even thought of buying a Sigma lens since then.

However, I did borrow a friends high-end Sigma WA zoom about 10 years ago to shoot a house interior, it was 12mm to I can't remember, f2.8, and very sharp, no spherical distortion, but it wasn't a full frame lens, the build quality was excellent.

Aside from that one occasion I never found the Canon bundled 18-55mm a bad lens, in terms of image quality, a bit slow though at f3.5-5.6, Cheap and plastic mine failed just after the warranty expired. I replaced it with the Tamron 17mm-35mm, f2.8-4, but I was only using it on the EF-S 300D &b50D. An excellent lens but I was (and still am) gobsmacked at its full frame capacity on my 5D MkIV.

There is no simple answer, but second hand lenses can be cheap.

Ian

 

[GeeJay57]

I still use a 7Dii and have a 50D as a backup. The EF-S 15-85mm has been my walkabout lens for over 10-years. Have been and am very pleased with it.

My wife uses an 80D and has an 18-135mm as her walkabout lens, which is also pretty good. It has the very fast ‘nano USM’ focusing system.

 

[Phil V]

Aside from that one occasion I never found the Canon bundled 18-55mm a bad lens, in terms of image quality, a bit slow though at f3.5-5.6, Cheap and plastic mine failed just after the warranty expired. I replaced it with the Tamron 17mm-35mm, f2.8-4

I never used the Canon 18-55 kit lens, the 17-55 is a different proposition altogether.
I did though also have the Tamron 17-35 for full frame and it was excellent for the money.

I’ve also had (still have the 35mm) some later Sigma lenses, and they’ve been excellent, I think the mirrorless version of their 18-50? is highly regarded, but the DSLR version was decidedly sub-par.