Lens Recommendations.

[MadAsToast]

Hoping someone might be able to recommend a lens, my current set up is:

Canon EOS 30D
Canon 18-55mm (kit lens)
Canon 100-400

I'm looking to get someting "inbetween" ideally a walk around lens but with an amount of "reach" as I find the 18-55 is sometimes lacking.

Was looking at perhaps an 18-200 or a 70-200 and wondered if anyone could recommend something they're happy with?

Looking to get back into photography so dont mind spending for the right lens (if that makes sense) as I've not had the opportunity to purse it for a while

Thanks
MadAsToast

 

[Andy.]

The 15-85 IS gets good reviews, it would be good if you are using a flash indoors or most of your shots are outdoors. There is also the 17-55 f2.8 IS but then you have the same reach restrictions.

If you need something longer, the 24-105 f4L IS is a nice lens, but I found 24mm on a crop body a bit restrictive. I'd personally stear clear of the 18-200 lenses, they offer a good range but at the price of quality.

I used a 18-55 & 70-200 combo for over a year, but I don't think it would really give you much over the 100-400 (nice choice BTW).

 

[vibrio]

**sale info removed**

the main problem with zooms like the 18-200 is the quality of the image you get from them which is not particularly great. greater the zoom range the more IQ problems you get like barrel distortion, chromatic aberation, softness etc. The 15-85 is not much of an improvement over the 17-85 so if you were buying new teh 17-85 would be the better buy. The 17-55 is pretty much the best standard zoom lens you can buy for APS-C canons but you'll suffer from the same reach problem.

I used to have 10-22, 24-105, 100-400 and it covered 10mm to 400mm which was good but like andy says on a crop the 24mm can be limiting so changing to the 10-22 was a bit of a pain sometimes.

ultimatly how much do you want to spend?

 

[Omid]

My 17-85 covers everything I need, it is a cracking lens, the 15-85mm isn't worth the extra, and for the money people pay for the 17-55mm, I would just go for a 17-40mm L lens

 

[fil_b]

i have a sigma 70-300mm lense - tis has worked well for me as i am still getting into my photography.

had some nice shots at Santa Pod and Silverstone.

I love the cannon 100-400 but price is the issue

 

[Laura]

ive got a 35-105 decent reach on it, although ive round as a walk about lens it is a bit to far reached sometime

 

[MadAsToast]

I've got a 17-85 with hood for sale £180 if youa re interested lol

ultimatly how much do you want to spend?

hehe, cheers for the offer, I'll probably be buying new - if anything goes wrong I like to be able to take it back to the place of purchase and it's alot easier if it's a shop

the lenses so far I've looked at the top price is around £650, which is probably the top of my limit, anything under is a bonus and I can get other toys

the 100-400 is a cracking lens, but has a weight disadvantage for general day to day walk around lens which is really why I'm loking to get something that has a little distance on it, but can still cope with general use happily.

Thanks for the replies so far, I'll have a look at the ones suggested.

 

[Cup_Phil]

In my opinion - steer clear of the long reach zoom lenses like the 18-200mm - they sacrifice quality for the reach

You need to work out what you need more - the flexibility or a nice low aperture

I've got the 24-70 f2.8L which is a fantastic walking around lens but it's £1k new

With your budget - and wanting a flexible walking around lens with some reach - I'd be looking at the canon 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM

The image stabilisation and USM will be nice for walking around in mixed conditions - and it has a nice reach but drops right down to 15mm for landscapes and indoor shots

if you're looking for something longer - I can't recommend the 70-200mm f4L enough - i picked one up for £530 a few weeks ago and it is just pin sharp all the time!

You can see samples from the 15-85mm here -> http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=760140

That forum has samples from pretty much all the lenses

 

[vibrio]

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS Macro HSM (make sure its the HSM with OS varient) for around £320 gives you the wide angle and a bit longer reach or the 17-85 for the sameish price brand new (lens hood is about £20 sigma comes with a lens hoos).

 

[unofficialPete]

15-85 would personally be on my shortlist. Although I'm very happy with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, can't beat the speed and IS for general shooting. Although if the range of the kit lens isn't good enough, throw that idea out the window.

My 17-85 covers everything I need, it is a cracking lens, the 15-85mm isn't worth the extra, and for the money people pay for the 17-55mm, I would just go for a 17-40mm L lens

Slower, shorter, no IS, maybe built better, has a pretty red ring and hood included, not for me thanks!

 

[Cup_Phil]

yeah the 17-55 2.8 IS is a lovely lens - but not very long for general shooting. It's the one I considered before I blew my budget and got the 24-70L

 

[vibrio]

15-85 would personally be on my shortlist. Although I'm very happy with the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, can't beat the speed and IS for general shooting. Although if the range of the kit lens isn't good enough, throw that idea out the window.



Slower, shorter, no IS, maybe built better, has a pretty red ring and hood included, not for me thanks!

17-40 has significantly less CA and less barrel distortion but it is like you say shoter and heavier.

 

[dunganick]

Honestly the 18-200 IS i owned impressed me hugely. IS was very effective for handheld shots in rubbish light. IQ at both ends was superb, nice close focus distance, so it was good for product photos. For £300ish i dont think you can grumble.

The 24-105 seems the logical choice to me. Nice lens, fills a gap in your lens line up. L lens - so it wont loose value if you buy used.

The 70-200 should be in everyones bag. I love mine to pieces, it is always with me. Would be the last lens i sold, and it takes a TC very well.

 

[Omid]

Honestly the 18-200 IS i owned impressed me hugely. IS was very effective for handheld shots in rubbish light. IQ at both ends was superb, nice close focus distance, so it was good for product photos. For £300ish i dont think you can grumble.

The 24-105 seems the logical choice to me. Nice lens, fills a gap in your lens line up. L lens - so it wont loose value if you buy used.

The 70-200 should be in everyones bag. I love mine to pieces, it is always with me. Would be the last lens i sold, and it takes a TC very well.

I hate the 18-200 as do many others but spot on with the other 2 recommendations. Especially if you can afford the F2.8 version

Slower, shorter, no IS, maybe built better, has a pretty red ring and hood included, not for me thanks!

No point having high aperture if you lose sharpness etc.

yeah the 17-55 2.8 IS is a lovely lens - but not very long for general shooting. It's the one I considered before I blew my budget and got the 24-70L

Overpriced for what it is IMO, especially with all the dust problems they have had.

 

[unofficialPete]

Apparently so, its so bad that my 17-55 has no dust and my 50mm f/1.8 & 85mm f/1.8s looked like someone with swine flue had sneezed in them!

As for saying the 17-55 f/2.8 is soft and unusable at f/2.8, that is laughable. It doesn't stand up against my primes stopped down to f/2.8 but its more than usable, more so than the 17-40, for my personal usage anyway. Massive improvement over the 18-55 anyway.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Everyone should own a version of the 70-200 but its a big overlap and not sure I could justify owning both as good as they are. If your happy with the IQ of the 18-55, you'll be happy with the 18-200, its probably a fantastic all rounder/travel lens if you can refrain from pixel peeping and comparing 100% crops.

 

[vibrio]

Overpriced for what it is IMO, especially with all the dust problems they have had.

it has no dust problems - mine certainly never had any dust inside

 

[Omid]

As for saying the 17-55 f/2.8 is soft and unusable at f/2.8, that is laughable.

No one said that

 

[ukaskew]

Sigma 50-150 2.8? It's the best walk-around lens I've owned and I'm saving my ass off to buy another before I go away for the Summer.

It's basically a 70-200 for the digital age, extremely compact but takes a beautiful photo.

A few shots from mine: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=50-150&w=43894860@N00