New Canon lens for general use

[illmonkey]

I have a Canon 450d and I've just found £250 in an account (yey) so wanted to grab a lens I can use over Christmas. Reckon I could stretch to £375-£400 for it.

It'll mainly be for shooting people (inc groups of people) and up close winter shots, maybe some landscapes. I've seen the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 and the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (difference between this and the 18-135mm?).

Anything else I should look at or comments on what I've selected?

ETA: I've got the kit lens 18-55mm as well as a 50mm f/1.8, I also have a Tamron 18-235mm but I'm going to get rid of that.

[Oxygen2k10]

I can’t really comment on the two lenses suggested but a lot of people recommend the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as a good, reasonably priced replacement for the kit lens. It’s available either with or without VC (Tamron’s version of Image Stabilisation). Both are meant to be great lenses however the none VC is apparently a little sharper and is obviously a fair bit cheaper. The constant 2.8 aperture is the main selling point though.

Food for thought!

[StuH]

15-85 can be had at the very top of your budget:

You'll really appreciate the extra mm at the wide end for landscapes.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...

http://www.procamerashop.co.uk/product/Canon_EF-S_...

[Marc W]

Beware of that site for buying anything, it's a Hong Kong grey importer trying to pretend they are a Uk retailer.

[illmonkey]

Bumpage. Still can't decide what to get. There are so many from 18mm onwards, not sure if its worth getting a short lens or getting something like a 18-200. If they are longer, are they as good?

[DIW35]

I would never buy a lens that covers such a large focal range, as they tend to be too much of a compromise and don't excel at any length, wide or tele.

[illmonkey]

DIW35 said:

I would never buy a lens that covers such a large focal range, as they tend to be too much of a compromise and don't excel at any length, wide or tele.

That's what I'm thinking, sort of jack of all trades lens.

I have 50mm fixed and it tends to be to tight for family shots etc, so I don't need anything above that.

Leaning towards the 17-85mm, rather than the 18-55mm, mainly as it looks more complicated!

[Craikeybaby]

From what I can tell the 17-85mm is a good step up from the kit lens.

[JustinP1]

illmonkey said:

I have 50mm fixed and it tends to be to tight for family shots etc, so I don't need anything above that.

Just to throw a curveball in there:

I found exactly the same thing with the 50mm f1.4. Great lens, perfect for indoors with no flash, but, on a crop body I found myself automatically leaning back, or trying to move back to frame the shot properly.

I had a similar quandary, and started looking at the mid-range zooms, and without spending for an 'L' lens there's not too many to even get close the IQ of the prime. More importantly for me was having a fast lens I could use indoors without a flash.

In the end I sacrificed the zoom facility and for the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I've found perfect for a crop body. So much so, I'm thinking of getting rid of the 50mm as it doesn't get used.

What I traded for a zoom lens was the speed and IQ which meant that I can easily use 'poor man's zoom' later on if needed to frame a shot the way I want.

[JDRoest]

illmonkey said:

Bumpage. Still can't decide what to get. There are so many from 18mm onwards, not sure if its worth getting a short lens or getting something like a 18-200. If they are longer, are they as good?

Was on a job during the summer, lens died, so replaced it with a Canon 15-85. Couldn't be happier with it.

[Kermit power]

JustinP1 said:

Just to throw a curveball in there:

I found exactly the same thing with the 50mm f1.4. Great lens, perfect for indoors with no flash, but, on a crop body I found myself automatically leaning back, or trying to move back to frame the shot properly.

I had a similar quandary, and started looking at the mid-range zooms, and without spending for an 'L' lens there's not too many to even get close the IQ of the prime. More importantly for me was having a fast lens I could use indoors without a flash.

In the end I sacrificed the zoom facility and for the Sigma 30mm f1.4 which I've found perfect for a crop body. So much so, I'm thinking of getting rid of the 50mm as it doesn't get used.

What I traded for a zoom lens was the speed and IQ which meant that I can easily use 'poor man's zoom' later on if needed to frame a shot the way I want.

I'd agree with that. Only difference is that I went for the Canon 28mm f1.8. Perfect as a "natural field of view" lens on a crop body.

[Speed addicted]

I replaced the kit lens on my 500D with the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-5.6, I'm now using it as a general lens on my 7d with pretty good results.
I was considering upgrading but would want something like a 10-50 f1.8, to replace both the 17-70 and 10-20, which as far as I can tell dosen't exist...

[danjama]

Canons 15-85 is very good!

[Dogsey]

danjama said:

Canons 15-85 is very good!

[RobDickinson]

Craikeybaby said:

From what I can tell the 17-85mm is a good step up from the kit lens.

In some ways its a step down from canons new IS kit lens. Optically anyhow. Build , USM etc is still better.

I would avoid the 17-85.

The 15-85 is a totally different lens and very very good.

[northernmonkeybo]

I bought a Canon 28mm 1.8 this summer to solve the 'lean back' issue with my nifty fifty - Although I'm really happy with effectively having a 35mm ish lens on my camera now I struggle in low light compared to the fifty - I found the fifty excellent in low light but the 28mm not as good...

Sat next to my desk is my new ebay purchase - Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 - This is to compliment the 28mm giving me a wide angle alternative... - Plan is the 28mm is for low light and the 10-20mm for wideness - Together I'm hoping I have the perfect setup..!

[Kermit power]

northernmonkeybo said:

I bought a Canon 28mm 1.8 this summer to solve the 'lean back' issue with my nifty fifty - Although I'm really happy with effectively having a 35mm ish lens on my camera now I struggle in low light compared to the fifty - I found the fifty excellent in low light but the 28mm not as good...

Sat next to my desk is my new ebay purchase - Sigma 10-20mm 3.5 - This is to compliment the 28mm giving me a wide angle alternative... - Plan is the 28mm is for low light and the 10-20mm for wideness - Together I'm hoping I have the perfect setup..!

That's odd. Surely all logic would dictate the 28mm would be better than the 50mm in low light conditions, given that the shorter focal length gives you effectively an extra stop?

[2slo]

35mm is a good focal length for a Canon crop body. 35 x 1.6 = 56mm which is a decent general purpose focal length. If you then decide to get a FF camera, the 35mm gives you a wide angle option. I deliberated about which Canon fast prime to buy and decided on the 35mm partly for that reason. Some comments suggested it isn't sharp wide open and when I got mine it wasn't. An hour invested microadjusting it to my cameras and it's now sharp wide open and very sharp stopped down to f/2. I suspect that some of the people complaining about poor performance have just stuck the lens on the camera and expected it to be perfect. That rarely happens. most of my lenses have needed some degree of adjustment to give their best.

[Kermit power]

I've got to get round to checking my lenses for micro-adjustment. Anyone have any views on the best/easiest way to do this?

[2slo]

Kermit power said:

I've got to get round to checking my lenses for micro-adjustment. Anyone have any views on the best/easiest way to do this?

Three options come to mind. One, send the whole lot in to Canon and they may do it for you if all your kit is still under warranty. Two, buy one of the microadjust software or ruler type packages and use that. Third, do it the way I do it which, I accept, may not be as accurate as the first two methods but it will be cheaper and/or less time consuming and it'll be pretty close. This is a paste from some advice I put on Flickr, this is specific to primes. For zoom lenses and with the 7D you'll have to put in a compromise MA setting, i.e. check the adjustment at the wide end and then again at the long end. it will invariably be different so either set the MA somewhere between the two or change it depending on how you're using the lens. I hope that makes sense. Here is what I was referring to and this was based on a 35mm prime:

Fixed on a tripod aimed at a subject with smallish font print in ggod light (preferably outdoors in daylight) at a distance you expect to use the lens at. Set your aperture where it should be sharp (I used f/2). Keep your ISO fairly low then after you've focussed, take a series of test shots dialling in variations of MA (I suggest 0; -5; -10; +5; +10) look at these on 100% magnification and one of them will stand out as sharper (text much easier to read than the others) use that MA figure as your starting point and repeat the exercise adjusting this time around the above figure by 0, -1,-2, +1, +2 (e.g. if in the first exercise you found -10 was your sharpest increment, then dial in -10; -11; -12; -9; -8. Whichever one of these looks right, save it and use it.

Little known fact with the 5D3: you can MA zooms seperately at both ends and every lens you do this with is memorised by the camera. Very useful feature IMHO.

Edited by 2slo on Tuesday 13th November 16:48