Which general purpose lens for canon 550d
Discussion
I bought a canon 550d last year with the standard lens which I feel isn't all that great. I am an amateur when it comes to photography . I am looking to upgrade to a decent general purpose lens that will cover the majority of uses without being too large.
What do we all recommend ? I don't mind paying a little extra for a quality lens that will last a while. I've heard of the L series but not sure which to to for.
What do we all recommend ? I don't mind paying a little extra for a quality lens that will last a while. I've heard of the L series but not sure which to to for.
. Up till then I'd been using a 17-40 L series lens and haven't used it since.rich83 said:
leggly said:
I think the best value/quality for the price would be a 24-105l lens, cheap as chips considering how good it it is. I'm very drunk and should probably walk/stagger away from the keyboard now. 
Good lens but better on full frame than crop
24-105. I don't buy all this that it's no good on a crop. Yes you arn't using all the glass. However in real terms it's pretty solidly well built, it's got pretty good IS, it's got a constant aperture across the whole of the zoom range which can come in handy for any video work. It's also weathersealed, which whilst not overly useful on your camera is a plus - stick a plastic bag over your camera, a filer on the end of this lens and don't worry about it getting wet.
At the price it is, it will hold it's value - and if you ever want to upgrade to ff it will still work which is more than can be said for efs lenses.
I've got the 24-70 2.8 ii, and I still keep mine. It's slower, not as sharp (although thats more of a compliment to the 24-70 than a negative to the 105), however it's got IS which is very useful for video and also the extra reach make it's a fair bit more useful when I'm not bothered about pixel peeping.
Only caveat is to get a new one (older ones don't offer a good enough saving and you won't know how it's been treated, you certainly wouldn't want mine), and also get it imported as that will save a fair whack of cash.
At the price it is, it will hold it's value - and if you ever want to upgrade to ff it will still work which is more than can be said for efs lenses.
I've got the 24-70 2.8 ii, and I still keep mine. It's slower, not as sharp (although thats more of a compliment to the 24-70 than a negative to the 105), however it's got IS which is very useful for video and also the extra reach make it's a fair bit more useful when I'm not bothered about pixel peeping.
Only caveat is to get a new one (older ones don't offer a good enough saving and you won't know how it's been treated, you certainly wouldn't want mine), and also get it imported as that will save a fair whack of cash.
rich83 said:
I didn't say it wasn't any good on crop. I said it's better on full frame. 24mm on a crop isn't that wide really... IMO not wide enough for a "walk around" lens.
This is the problem, 24mm on a crop body is 38mm. If this is your 'do it all' lens its not really going to cut it.OP can you clarify, are you looking for a quality replacement for your kit lens that will give you a faster aperture, better focussing or sharper images. Or are you looking for a lens that has a great range of focal length so you can just keep one lens on the camera when you go out?
Unfortunately the two options are pretty much independent of each other!
The OP did say he was thinking about L-series lenses. That do not make any l-series efs lenses. Whether it is worth getting l-series glass for a 550d is debatable (well actually it isn't as it's a good camera), but no l-series lens is going to be designed for it.
My mother recently came back from Canada after her annual monthly holiday to see my brother who lives there. Annoyingly she came back with a Canon 1100d, this was after her offering her an old 7d which was perfect mechanically but tatty though use. She said it was too big for her so I gave it to a friend - well my brother has talked her into a dslr. I offered her the 24-105 as I don't want to sell it but it would be a lot lot better than the kit crap it came with. I was slightly insulted to be told it's too big and that she isn't interested in that until she really gets her head around it all.
Put it this way - if it was my money I'd be getting the 24-105 but I'd use the extra length more than the extra stop. But then thats just me. I also don't do a lot of wide angle work, my 16-35 rarely even get taken in the bag. The 70-200 on the other hand with a 1.4 converter suits me just fine for 80% of my shots.
My mother recently came back from Canada after her annual monthly holiday to see my brother who lives there. Annoyingly she came back with a Canon 1100d, this was after her offering her an old 7d which was perfect mechanically but tatty though use. She said it was too big for her so I gave it to a friend - well my brother has talked her into a dslr. I offered her the 24-105 as I don't want to sell it but it would be a lot lot better than the kit crap it came with. I was slightly insulted to be told it's too big and that she isn't interested in that until she really gets her head around it all.
Put it this way - if it was my money I'd be getting the 24-105 but I'd use the extra length more than the extra stop. But then thats just me. I also don't do a lot of wide angle work, my 16-35 rarely even get taken in the bag. The 70-200 on the other hand with a 1.4 converter suits me just fine for 80% of my shots.
Another vote for the 15-85mm here.
The 17-55 is also nice, quality essentially seems the same between the 2 from when I looked in to it. You have to decide on reach vs aperture really.
For me I decide reach is more useful for the general purpose lens. Bare in mind 2.8 is not that fast really so if I want fast, then really I'm going to be sticking a prime on.
So many of my shots have been at 15mm (24mm equiv) and up at 85mm (136mm equiv) that I don't regret for a second the choice. It's also sharp wide open so it's not like you need to stop it down further.
The 17-55 is also nice, quality essentially seems the same between the 2 from when I looked in to it. You have to decide on reach vs aperture really.
For me I decide reach is more useful for the general purpose lens. Bare in mind 2.8 is not that fast really so if I want fast, then really I'm going to be sticking a prime on.
So many of my shots have been at 15mm (24mm equiv) and up at 85mm (136mm equiv) that I don't regret for a second the choice. It's also sharp wide open so it's not like you need to stop it down further.
boxster9 said:
I bought a canon 550d last year with the standard lens which I feel isn't all that great.
Before anything else the first question here is "Why don't you feel the lens isn't that great ?"- Focusing speed ?
- Low light performance ?
- Sharpness ?
photosnob said:
The OP did say he was thinking about L-series lenses. That do not make any l-series efs lenses. Whether it is worth getting l-series glass for a 550d is debatable (well actually it isn't as it's a good camera), but no l-series lens is going to be designed for it.
Thousands of people put L lenses on APS-C cameras, mainly L telephotos mind. Rightly Canon don't make any L EF-S lenses as it would confuse things. I think crop cameras to some extent show up poor lenses more than full frame cameras do, you still have 18-20MP concentrated on a smaller part of the lens so any CA or any defect with the lens is more evident. For example the results from my 50mm f1.4 are much better on my 5D than on my 70D as it seems to highlight some of the flaws it has.I used to use my 17-55 f/2.8 with a 550D and the results were always good. You always get a better improvement in image quality by upgrading lenses, unless you have a Canon 20D or 30D.
Janesy B said:
photosnob said:
The OP did say he was thinking about L-series lenses. That do not make any l-series efs lenses. Whether it is worth getting l-series glass for a 550d is debatable (well actually it isn't as it's a good camera), but no l-series lens is going to be designed for it.
Thousands of people put L lenses on APS-C cameras, mainly L telephotos mind. Rightly Canon don't make any L EF-S lenses as it would confuse things. I think crop cameras to some extent show up poor lenses more than full frame cameras do, you still have 18-20MP concentrated on a smaller part of the lens so any CA or any defect with the lens is more evident. For example the results from my 50mm f1.4 are much better on my 5D than on my 70D as it seems to highlight some of the flaws it has.I used to use my 17-55 f/2.8 with a 550D and the results were always good. You always get a better improvement in image quality by upgrading lenses, unless you have a Canon 20D or 30D.
Either of these would be a better choice than any L lens. The only reason I'd look at an L lens in the normal/wide range would be if I owned or was about to purchase a full-frame camera.
Mr Will said:
The problem is not one of quality but of range. 39-112mm or 39-168mm equivalent makes for a very odd walkabout lens - not quite wide to slightly telephoto. The 17-40mm L fairs a little better (27-64mm equivalent) but the 17-55 f/2.8 (which you own) adds IS, an extra stop of light and a longer zoom for portraits with little (if any) loss of quality. Then there is the 15-85mm (24-136mm equivalent) which is a wonderful walkabout lens. Lightweight and decent quality with a focal range to cover almost all situations.
Either of these would be a better choice than any L lens. The only reason I'd look at an L lens in the normal/wide range would be if I owned or was about to purchase a full-frame camera.
It comes down to preference though doesn't it. I'd think that a 24-105 would be great on a crop camera. I don't do a lot of wide angle stuff and would enjoy that extra reach. Either of these would be a better choice than any L lens. The only reason I'd look at an L lens in the normal/wide range would be if I owned or was about to purchase a full-frame camera.
Also when we are talking about apertures, we also need to remember that not everyone wants a very fast lens. Being able to shoot at 2.8 or 1.4 is fine, however it doesn't leave a lot of room to have a large depth of field if you are shooting say a portrait.
Ultimately and without being a dick, once the op is ready to splash several hundred or even thousand on a lens he should know why he wants it and what he is going to use it for. That hasn't stopped me before, which is why I've got some very expensive lenses with very little use.
photosnob said:
Mr Will said:
The problem is not one of quality but of range. 39-112mm or 39-168mm equivalent makes for a very odd walkabout lens - not quite wide to slightly telephoto. The 17-40mm L fairs a little better (27-64mm equivalent) but the 17-55 f/2.8 (which you own) adds IS, an extra stop of light and a longer zoom for portraits with little (if any) loss of quality. Then there is the 15-85mm (24-136mm equivalent) which is a wonderful walkabout lens. Lightweight and decent quality with a focal range to cover almost all situations.
Either of these would be a better choice than any L lens. The only reason I'd look at an L lens in the normal/wide range would be if I owned or was about to purchase a full-frame camera.
It comes down to preference though doesn't it. I'd think that a 24-105 would be great on a crop camera. I don't do a lot of wide angle stuff and would enjoy that extra reach. Either of these would be a better choice than any L lens. The only reason I'd look at an L lens in the normal/wide range would be if I owned or was about to purchase a full-frame camera.
Also when we are talking about apertures, we also need to remember that not everyone wants a very fast lens. Being able to shoot at 2.8 or 1.4 is fine, however it doesn't leave a lot of room to have a large depth of field if you are shooting say a portrait.
Ultimately and without being a dick, once the op is ready to splash several hundred or even thousand on a lens he should know why he wants it and what he is going to use it for. That hasn't stopped me before, which is why I've got some very expensive lenses with very little use.
We really need the OP back to tell us what he wants it for. Even if it's just the little red ring on the front, we all know the feeling. (I really want a big white lens, despite the fact I almost never shoot telephoto!)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff