Wife wants something besides sports shots

[Hydro]

Yeah, she says she's tired of shots of elephant seals and the kids only when they are playing sports. I suppose she's right. So now I need to select a good lens for those "walk around" type shooting opportunites.

About two years ago when I first was looking for this kind of lens, the consensus seemed to be that if you were willing to part with the $, the 24-70L 2.8 was the current favorite. But searching the forum I now see a few others, including Tamron's 17-50 2.8, that seem to be gaining in popularity.

Although this is an subject re-hash for many, if someone feels like offering their opinion of the best lens to round out what I have already (see my signature) I would appreciate it. I am not put off by the size of the 24-70, and would be willing to spend the money if it is really that much better than others in that general focal length, and I think I would like to stay with F 2.8.

I know L is nice, but I also know you can get excellent IQ with less expensive lenses. I love my 85 f1.8 for example. I just know I would like something better than the kit lens.



Thanks,

RICK

[cdifoto]

You have a Mark II N. Don't stick yourself with a ~17-50 because it would only be usable on the 20D. Too wide on the Mark II N even if you get the 17-40L. Look at the usual 24/28-70/75 suspects.

Personally I think your Mark II N deserves a 24-70L. It mates nicely with the 70-200 IQ & handling and focus reliability/accuracy wise. It's a no-brainer, IMHO. I don't know why you'd compromise on the short end, when you didn't on the tele.

[RichNY]

I think the size and weight of the 20D makes it a much better walk around camera that's why I kept my 30D and 17-55IS after I purchased the IIN. Personally I'd go with the 17-55 and have a great focal range, image quality, and IS.

I also think the 20D and 17-55 combined with the IIN and 70-200 work well together when taking out both cameras.

[Billginthekeys]

since you have the MKII i would get the 24-70 aswell. or 24-105 F4 IS depending on what sort of low light usage you need.

[ayreonaut]

Try a normal prime like the 50mm/1.4 for great indoor candids.

[12345Michael54321]

she says she's tired of shots of elephant seals and the kids only when they are playing sports.
If she is tired of those shots, let her take pictures of other things.

If, on the other hand, you enjoy taking such photos, you should feel free to continue doing so.

So, what is it? Do you want to take "walking around" pictures, and need a lens recommendation? Or would you really rather just keep taking pictures of elephant seals and soccer-player children?

Assuming you do need lens recommendations, might you be interested in doing the fixed focal length thing? A 24mm, 50mm, and 85mm trio (or, I suppose, 20mm, 35mm, and 50mm, if working in the 1.6x crop factor universe) would tend to be faster than a zoom. Probably smaller and lighter (per individual lens) than most zooms. Probably optically superior to a zoom. And the combined cost of the three lenses might not be any more than that of a premium zoom lens. Yeah, they're sometimes a little less convenient than a single "Do It All" lens, but it's all about trade offs, eh?

Well, just a thought. Wide-Normal-Short Tele make for a highly useful trio of "walking around" lenses.

Alternatively, if convenience is really important to you, keeping something like a Canon Powershot S50 in your jacket pocket may be a better choice than an SLR w/zoom lens. Especially if the SLR would often be left at home due to its size/weight, while the S50 would always be with you. Better a good p&s with you, than a great SLR back at home/the office/the car/etc., right?