best walk-around lens?

[okiediver]

I have a brand new Rebel XTi and I would like one lens to use 80% of the time. Could I get some suggestions from the experienced shooters out there? I also wish to stay under $500 if that is even remotely possible. Thanks so much as I really need the advice.

[Saudidave]

Sigma 17-70. If you want IS, Canon 17-85, but the CA & barrel distortion can be relatively high considering the price. My 17-85 stayed on my camera 95% of the time

[Broncobear]

17-70 here gets my vote...

[Pete]

It really depends on what kind of photography you walk around doing. I bought my lenses on an as-needed basis, identifying a need in my photography and assessing what lens would best fit that need.

I assume you have the kit lens with your XTi, so what is it that you find is lacking in working with it? If you can't find anything really wrong with it, keep it and see if you have a need in another focal length. Getting a new lens simply because you have the money to do so seems to be a bit of a muddled methodology to me...

[steved110]

Best value lens is the 17-70 from Sigma.

If you want an L lens and want wider rather than longer, the 17-40L is a wonderful lens. If you want to speand a little more and don't mind starting a little longer, the 24-105 IS L is a fantastic option.

If you have a fair amount to spend and don't mind an EF-S lens then the 17-55 IS lens is a good option too.

I've just seen your budget, it looks as though the 17-70 is your best option cash-wise, unless you can find a good used 17-40

[BobbyT]

I have a Sigma 17-70 being delivered today. I chose it because it best fit my needs and is supposed to be a better performer than the kit lens.

[hef]

I hear great things about the sigma 17-70 and it's cheap on sigma4less.com and beachcamera.

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SG1770NA

[kidpower]

I agree that it depends on what kind of photography you generally like to do. Each person has there own style. I walk around with a Canon 85 1.8 on my XT. It just fits perfectly the kind of stuff I am interested in and the way I like to capture photos.

[BobbyT]

I hear great things about the sigma 17-70 and it's cheap on sigma4less.com and beachcamera.

http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=SG1770NA

That link is for a Nikon. They are not showing one for Canon which is strange as I just ordered a 17-70 from them over the weekend.

[fWord]

The EF-S 17-85mm is truly 'walkabout' on this camera. Great range, and the IS means you won't necessarily need a tripod even in dimmer areas. Just bump up the ISO and you'll be able to carry on photographing any static objects.

As Saudidave this lens does have problems with CA, and pronounced barrel distortion at the wide end. But if you can live with that, the lens produces images with good sharpness. Otherwise the Sigma 17-70mm is a nice one, from what I've read.

If you find yourself shooting very wide most of the time, then consider instead the Canon 17-40mmL...look for second-hand goods if you can, and it will save you quite a few bucks.

[ScottE]

I would stick with the 18-55 kit lens until I knew what I wanted. When you know how the kit lens limits your photography you will know what you need to improve.

There are two lenses I would consider as an upgrade for a general walk around lens.

The 17-85 has more zoom range, has image stabilization for low light situations and has a quiet USM motor that permits full time manual focus override. If you require a slightly longer zoom range that the kit lens it is a good choice.

The 17-55 has a fast f/2.8 aperture for low light and limited depth of field, image stabilization, USM motor with full time manual focus override and is the sharpest zoom lens that Canon makes. If you need a larger aperture and better image quality than the kit lens this is a good choice.

[Medic85]

Sigma 17-70. I've been extremely happy with mine and it is signifigantly cheaper than the 17-85 IS.

[TMR Design]

Another vote for the Sigma 17-70mm. I love mine.

[AginKajun]

I have a 17-70 Sigma but I also have an 18-200 that for walk around is great. Also has a little Macro capability. It will also give you an idea of which range you use the most for later when you really get bit for L Glass.

[canoflan]

If a windfall comes your way and you can swing $1000, then the 24-105 f/4L IS is my vote.;)

[tripletaker]

I will vote for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. ~$450.

[AginKajun]

I have a 17-70 Sigma but I also have an 18-200 that for walk around is great. Also has a little Macro capability. It will also give you an idea of which range you use the most for later when you really get bit for L Glass.

[hotmouse]

If a windfall comes your way and you can swing $1000, then the 24-105 f/4L IS is my vote.;)
I second that motion....;)

[gardengirl13]

Depends on what you shoot.

My 35 is on my camera about 65% of the time as a walk around. Cost me $230

[MikeCaine]

The EF-S 17-85mm is my "lenscap" lens, it's on my camera all of the time. I only change it if I want to go wider (EF-S 10-22) or longer (EF 70-200L or EF 100-400L)

[joe_sun]

I'm curious as to why most are picking the Sigma 17-70 over the Tamron 17-50? I thought the Tamron was supposed to be a better lens?

I'm curious because I just bought the Tamron 17-50 over the 17-70 and am wondering if I made a poor decision.

[Broncobear]

I really am not sure if Tamron is better..I tested both and I thought 17-70 was the best for me

as a bonus it is also a macro lens....

[dtngo]

I'm curious as to why most are picking the Sigma 17-70 over the Tamron 17-50? I thought the Tamron was supposed to be a better lens?

I'm curious because I just bought the Tamron 17-50 over the 17-70 and am wondering if I made a poor decision.
I chose the 17-70 for the extra range. The Tamron and Sigma 17/18-50mm seem like great units but I don't think I could live without the 20mm.

Don't worry about it, you've already bought the Tamron so if you're happy with your purchase then thats all that matters :)

[Tim S]

I like my Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 and it was only $249 at B&H.

[iLuveKetchup]

The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is my walk around lens & it's on the camera 90% of the time. On a cropped body, its the closest I'll get to 50mm.

[liza]

If you want something that will shoot better in low light, get the Tamron 17-50. For those who need more reach and don't need a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout the focal length, the Sigma 17-70 would be a good replacement for the kit lens. It depends on what you shoot primarily. If it were me, I'd get the Tamron for not only the f/2.8 but for the image quality.

[condyk]

I'd go 17-70mm ... I found the 24-105mm L now wide enough and the 17-40mm L not long enough for how I shoot, which is mainly urban. I don't personally rate the Canon IS lenses at the consumer end ... value is poor compared to better/faster lenses. The Tamron looks good and is faster ... depends if you want longer or faster. Either will do a superb job used well.

[Woolburr]

For under 500 bucks...the only solid choice with a wide enough range is a EF28-135 IS....Some will tell you it isn't wide enough, some will say it isn't sharp enough...mine has served me faithfully for a number of years.

[EdV]

I have a brand new Rebel XTi and I would like one lens to use 80% of the time. Could I get some suggestions from the experienced shooters out there? I also wish to stay under $500 if that is even remotely possible. Thanks so much as I really need the advice.

I don't qualify as an "experienced" shooter. In fact, I'm pretty much a newb myself but, to offer another option to think about, I am finding that I am doing well leaving my Canon 28-135 IS USM on as I wander around. It does provide a bit more reach. Just another alternative and it in your price range.

(I see Woolburr beat me to the punch by 3 minutes!)

[Nick_C]

A 24-105 F/4L IS seems too biased towards the far end, 24 on a rebel is useless for wide angle.

Sigma 17-70 is a perfect choice, as for it being better than a kit lens? well I personally think its wrong to even compare it to a kit lens, I don't know why reviewers always do this, the kit lens compared to a 17-70 is a toy!

Nick :-)

[dignacio]

I have to agree with Woodburr and EdV. The Canon 28-135mm IS would be a good upgrade as a walk around lens. When I first got my 30D, I mainly used that lens until I discovered prime lenses.

[Psychic1]

You don't need a windfall for the 28-105 II @ $250. Very nice lens.

[Bonjour43ma]

it really depends.

[Dorman]

Looks like the Sigma 17-70 is the overwhelming recommendation. I'd go with that or the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8

In a way I wish I had chosen the 17-70 over my 17-40 simply for the range, that way there's enough reach that I could justify adding an UWA. Can't do that right now, don't want to replace my 17-40 with a 10-20...eek.

[Jetmech1]

For under 500 bucks...the only solid choice with a wide enough range is a EF28-135 IS....Some will tell you it isn't wide enough, some will say it isn't sharp enough...mine has served me faithfully for a number of years.


I'm glad you posted about the 28-135mm IS lens. I have a good copy which delievers good results. They can be found in the For sale section of this forum for +-250.00. This is a great sub 500 dollar lens when purchased used. A canon 17-40 would be another lens to check out used. Should be able to find one around the 500.00 mark.

[joe_sun]

I chose the 17-70 for the extra range. The Tamron and Sigma 17/18-50mm seem like great units but I don't think I could live without the 20mm.

Don't worry about it, you've already bought the Tamron so if you're happy with your purchase then thats all that matters :)

Thanks for the reply

I was more interested in the constant 2.8 than the extra 20mm so yeah I'm happy with my lens :)

[okiediver]

WOW! Thanks for the great advice....I do not like the kit lens at all, I feel the pics are not "crisp".

I love macro. I also love to shoot my son's sports. I know I need 2 different lenses for these types of pics...

The Sigma sounds like a real winner at a great price.

The 28-135 also sounds like a good range also.....

Decisions decisions.....

I gave up my Nikon D70 to get something lighter and smaller as I hope to take the Rebel underwater with me soon.

I LOVE THE REBEL!!!

[Nick_C]

Ive seen a number of people selling their 28-xx lenses because 28 on a cropped body was not wide enough, ive got 17mm & want even wider!

With the 28-135mm you really have to decide whether you will be using the long end more than the wider end, if you mainly want a walkaround lens for shots around the city it would be fine, but for landscapes it would be lacking at only 28mm, but there really isnt a "Wrong" choice, its whatever your into.

Nick :-)

[Saudidave]

I sold my 28-135 and replaced it with a 17-85. I analysed maybe 100 shots before I made the change and found that I was rarely going longer than 80mm but often found that i didn't have the width a lot of the time. I would suggest that you carry out a similar survey of your useage before you decide. My 28 -135 had very similar IQ to my 17-85 but didn't have any CA issues. It did creep annoyingly though, on walkabout.

[EdV]

I sold my 28-135 and replaced it with a 17-85. I analysed maybe 100 shots before I made the change and found that I was rarely going longer than 80mm but often found that i didn't have the width a lot of the time. I would suggest that you carry out a similar survey of your useage before you decide. My 28 -135 had very similar IQ to my 17-85 but didn't have any CA issues. It did creep annoyingly though, on walkabout.

Fair enough. I find the opposite. As a matter of fact, I've been using the 28-135mm for birds and wildlife because it was the longest lens I had. Now I have a 70-300 so we will see.

Just for kicks, here's a cropped and sharpened photo taken with the 28-135 at 135mm. It all depends on what you want to do.

[fredw1]

This has been a great discussion because my walk-around lens has been a Sigma 28-200. I had never considered something wider, but will think about it now. I had been looking to upgrade this lens at one end or the other with either an 18-200 or a 28-300, but will consider something else.

[billh101]

I'm going to vote for the Tamron 17-50 2.8 over the Sigma. Most lenses need to be stopped down a little bit to be really sharp. That would make the Sigma way slow for low light stuff. Now, if you're mostly going to be shooting outside, no problem, the extra range with the Sigma would be good. Personally, I like big aperture lenses. I'm getting the 17-55 2.8 IS for Christmas, but if I hadn't been able to talk my wife into spending an insane amount of money for that lens, I'd probably be looking at the Tamron myself. By the way, the 17-55 2.8 IS is replacing my 17-40 4.0L, because it's too slow and not long enough for what I consider to be a general "walkaround" lens. Good luck, chances are you'll probably be happy with either one in the end.

[okiediver]

The hard part is, I want to do macro AND shoot some birds in the trees if I see that....is there a lens out there that can 90% accomodate that or am I asking too much?

[okiediver]

Very nice bird shot, by the way!