Please recommend a good L 'walk around' lens

[1stKnight]

Hi there,

I'm currently using an EF-S 17-85 as my 'walk around' lens; walking around historic towns / villages etc with my wife, I prefer to travel as light as possible and don't carry additional lenses with me all the time.

While I get decent picture's from it, I get sharper, more pleasing shots from my other lenses.

My solution to this is to replace it with a new L lens...but I'm not sure which one to buy as a 'general' lens.

Any recommendations?

[Southswede]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223495

[Col_M]

I'd be very tempted by the 17-55 2.8 IS, it's not an L but IQ is very good from what i've seen, it can be had for around £660, less if you take advantage of our mate Kerso :)

If you don't mind losing 7mm at the wide end the 24-70 and 24-105 are great, each have their advantages and everyone will defend their choice to the death :lol:

[tsaraleksi]

I use a 17-40 as a walk around. I did use a 28-105 but I haven't really missed the long end (and have been pleased as can be about the wide). It's an excellent lens.

[Luckie8]

I use a 17-40 as a walk around.
I second that..
17-40L the most affordable L lens and it is superb.

[1stKnight]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I'll have a look at the 24-105 L and 17-40 L. I'm visiting my sister in Texas for Christmas so I'll very likely purchase it over there and make it a present to myself; any recommendations for a reputable US-based online shop that I could get a good price from?

[Mr. Clean]

B&H

[Dan-o]

24-105. Can't beat that range.

[kevin_c]

Another 24-105L vote :-)

[Tyreman]

Some people say......the 24-105f/4L is Great!
Even the 28-105f/3.5-4.5 II usm is very good for the price..it aint' no slouch.

[JimAskew]

Sigma just announced an 18-200MM HSM w/OS (same as IS in the Canon world) for the Canon EF mount. I am going to wait and see how the reviewers rate that lens...it is a great range for "walk around" purposes.

[illy]

I'd be very tempted by the 17-55 2.8 IS, it's not an L but IQ is very good from what i've seen, it can be had for around £660, less if you take advantage of our mate Kerso :)

If you don't mind losing 7mm at the wide end the 24-70 and 24-705 are great, each have their advantages and everyone will defend their choice to the death :lol:

Assuming the IQ of the 24-705 is as good as with the 24-105, it must be the best walk around lens that exists :lol:

I'd reccommend the tamron 28-75mm or the canon 17-40mm

[Stan43]

I like the Canon 24-105L, or the Tamron 17-50 2.8. Both are great but I like the reach of the 105 vs the wide of the 17 on the Tamron. Both of mine are very sharp.

[jestergx4]

I have the 17-40L. One of the most affordable "L" lenses you can buy. A great walk-around lens.

[Col_M]

Assuming the IQ of the 24-705 is as good as with the 24-105, it must be the best walk around lens that exists :lol:

LOL ;) edited

[Billginthekeys]

another vote for the 24-105

[incendy]

I find I usually end up using the 35 1.4. I bought the 24-70 for this exact purpose, but am finding I like the results fo the 35mm much more.

[Outland]

I would say the 24-105 L IS, as I have just got one:) and Iam very pleased with this len's as a walk around. this is paired up with a 17-40 L for all the wide stuff.

[cjm]

How about my lens the 28-80 L, lol not that good for a walk about as with is the 24-70 f2.8 L because they weigh so much. But if you can handle the weight then hands down I think you would like that sort of range. The 24-70 L is a lens you'd probably always use but you have to get over the weight. Once you do, you'll be impressed.

[Dorman]

Since you already have the ultra wide and 100mm+ ranges covered I'd vote for the 24-105 F/4 IS or the 24-70 F/2.8, depending on what you need more, IS vs. Speed.

[amarasme]

For walk-around and travel I use a 17-40L on a 20D (more or less equivalent to 28-64 on a FF camera).

Great lense, and together with the 20D half the weight, and half the investment to carry with me, when compared with a 5D and a 24-70L or 24-105L.

At the most I will also carry a small prime in my bag, like the 85 f1.8 (135 mm on a FF), for candids, details, etc. Still light and relatively inexpensive without compromising quality.

[tsaraleksi]

Of course, when considering the 17-40, you have to take into account the danger it poses (I see the original poster already has this problem, but it's a general warning). As soon as you add that relativly inexpensive red ring to your lens family, you suddenly discover a "need" for a wide variety of other L lenses that you had no idea that you previously needed. And they all cost more. Those marketing folks at Canon are sly devils ;) .

[ed rader]

I have the 17-40L. One of the most affordable "L" lenses you can buy. A great walk-around lens.

the 17-40L is a decent walkround especially if you are into landscapes.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/B4FF23846C1B234/orig.jpg

[ed rader]

Assuming the IQ of the 24-705 is as good as with the 24-105, it must be the best walk around lens that exists :lol:

I'd reccommend the tamron 28-75mm or the canon 17-40mm

my 24-70L is as good as my former 24-105L at least for general shooting. i took this pic at twilight handheld with the 24-70L tho for something like this the 24-105L is a better choice.

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/D8CEC07A3A7EBA4/orig.jpg

[tdaugharty]

17-40L and the rest on my belt ;)

[Wilt]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

I'll have a look at the 24-105 L and 17-40 L. I'm visiting my sister in Texas for Christmas so I'll very likely purchase it over there and make it a present to myself; any recommendations for a reputable US-based online shop that I could get a good price from?

Place the order with B&H Photo before you travel, specify her mailing address as the shipping location, pick it up when you visit her!

[jr_senator]

I have a 20D, my walk-around lens is the 24-70L, works for me.

[steved110]

My walk around is the 17-40L, and I love it. but if I had to have just one lens, it would be the 24-105 f/4 L for the extra reach.

If you need something faster, you need to look at the 24-70 f/2.8 L and the 17-55 EF-S f/2.8 lens

Best value is probably the 17-40L

[Wilt]

Hi there,

I'm currently using an EF-S 17-85 as my 'walk around' lens; walking around historic towns / villages etc with my wife, I prefer to travel as light as possible and don't carry additional lenses with me all the time.

While I get decent picture's from it, I get sharper, more pleasing shots from my other lenses.

My solution to this is to replace it with a new L lens...but I'm not sure which one to buy as a 'general' lens.

Any recommendations?

You want a lens which does not exist...17-85 f/4L EF .

If you dislike weight (like me -- longtime Olympus OM fan!) carrying a 2 lb. 24-70 f/2.8L on your shoulder (while you casually play tourist) is too much like work -- but not getting paid for a job to carry the weight! I find I need 28mm (film) as my minimum walkaround at the wide end (which puts you into 17mm on a 1.6 crop frame).

[superdiver]

I am waiting for my 24-105L IS as I type. To hear so many good things said about it is reasuring...

[busterboy]

The 24-70L is a really sharp lens giving good results..:)

[KevC]

I love my 17-40L on a 1.6x crop body. I think it'd be nice on a 1.3x crop aswell. On full frame, however, it's about the 24-105L :D

[JNunn]

I use my 17-40L as my walkaround lens. Its never been too short for me especially if you like buildings, landscapes, statuary, monuments, flowers etc. Its probably my most utilitarian lens.

[michael_]

for its range the 24-105 most definately . 24-70 also even though i have neither i think its the perfect range for me.

[Lord_Malone]

my 24-70L is as good as my former 24-105L at least for general shooting. i took this pic at twilight handheld with the 24-70L tho for something like this the 24-105L is a better choice.

ed rader



I'm curious to know what prompted you to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70, Ed.

[CoolToolGuy]

Another vote for the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS - L or no-L its a great lens.

Have Fun,

[ed rader]

I'm curious to know what prompted you to switch from the 24-105 to the 24-70, Ed.

LM -- i've talked this thing to death but i'll sum it up for you.

here's what i didn't like about the 24-105L:

-- not a good portrait lens

-- average to terrible bokeh

-- not good wide open

-- not great after about 90mm

i had rented a 24-70L in the past so i knew what this lens was capable of. also i believe my copy of the 24-105L was not stellar, only average.

anyhow.........i bought a 17-40 and it had IQ comparable to the 24-105L but was totally usable @ f4!

i figure an L lens should be usable wide open....especially if it is F4.

i do a lot of animal and people portraits for which the 24-105L did an average job. it was my least favorite portrait lens but because it was on my camera most of the time it was used the most for portraits.

i bought the 85 1.8 and WOW....this lens shreds on portraits.

so here i had a walkaround that i had no confidence in using wide open or for portraits.

don't get me wrong the 24-105L is a very good lens with other strengths but i had just gotten to the point where i wanted a walkround that was very good for portraits, could be used wide open with confidence, and had better bokeh.

the obvious choice for me was the 24-70L. yep the brick. i bought Dante's 24-70L and it is an excellent copy and simply has better IQ than my copy the 24-105L as well as great bokeh.

now, if i were to move to FF i would probably pick up another 24-105L.

ed rader

[Lord_Malone]

LM -- i've talked this thing to death but i'll sum it up for you.

here's what i didn't like about the 24-105L:

-- not a good portrait lens

-- average to terrible bokeh

-- not good wide open

-- not great after about 90mm

i had rented a 24-70L in the past so i knew what this lens was capable of. also i believe my copy of the 24-105L was not stellar, only average.

anyhow.........i bought a 17-40 and it had IQ comparable to the 24-105L but was totally usable @ f4!

i figure an L lens should be usable wide open....especially if it is F4.

i do a lot of animal and people portraits for which the 24-105L did an average job. it was my least favorite portrait lens but because it was on my camera most of the time it was used the most for portraits.

i bought the 85 1.8 and WOW....this lens shreds on portraits.

so here i had a walkaround that i had no confidence in using wide open or for portraits.

don't get me wrong the 24-105L is a very good lens with other strengths but i had just gotten to the point where i wanted a walkround that was very good for portraits, could be used wide open with confidence, and had better bokeh.

the obvious choice for me was the 24-70L. yep the brick. i bought Dante's 24-70L and it is an excellent copy and simply has better IQ than my copy the 24-105L as well as great bokeh.

now, if i were to move to FF i would probably pick up another 24-105L.

ed rader


I see. Thanks for enlightening me, Ed. I had no idea you've already explained this to death. But then again I never pay any attention to any of your posts.

LOL just kidding, dude. ;) Seriously, thanks for spelling it out for me.

[puttick]

Doesn't it all rather depend on what you like to photograph when you "walk around"?

I like ALL my lenses as "walk around" lenses, on different occasions.

15/2.8
28/2.8
50/2.5 macro
100/2.8 macro
17-40/4 L
24-105/4 L
70-200/4 L
300/4 L IS
1.4 extender

; ^ )

[Double Negative]

Since getting the 24-70mm f/2.8L, it's on my camera more than any other lens. Love the IQ. It's a bit large and heavy, but IMO that is part of its charm. :p

[Lord_Malone]

I liked the Canon 28-105 II on my 20D. Inexpensive but impressive piece of kit for just "walk-about" photography.