Good quality walk around

[galadriel]

I have just purchased a canon 20D yeah!! I am looking for some advice on a good optical quality walk around lense. (zoom).. Price is not the issue I have some money put aside. I travel quite a bit and want it for landscape. family pictures indoors and out.,also steet scene photography. I would like to have the optical quality to blow up to 8 by 10 (minimum.)..( I am looking at canon only)
Any suggestions?
Thanks!

[DReb-MO]

24-70mm f/2.8L on the high side, $1,140
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS on the low, $410

[EricKonieczny]

28-105 , 3.5-4.5 UMS II

[mr.photoguy]

why not look at the 17-85 IS USM ...
It's regarded as a great lens, has USM, and has the wide side to do landscapes.
I never thought 28mm was wide enough to do landscapes. I tried it, and I was disapointed. 17-18 is good. 10-22 is really wide, I don't know if I would even need it, but not a good walk around.

My vote would be for the 17-85.
My dad has that on his 20D ... Very good lens.

[DavidEB]

Why look at canon only? Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 about $310 after rebate

constant f/2.8, lighter than any other mid-range zoom (great to carry all day). Optics are excellent, side-by-side reviews rate as almost as good as the canon L.

[Belmondo]

A very excellent lenst that doesn't get a lot of mention is the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8. It's small, not terribly expensive, and quite sharp. It suffers only from the bad reputation of the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 which was (is) something of a dog. This 24-60 is completely new and performs beatifully.

[mr.photoguy]

What will he do about landscape shots if he gets a lens with a minimum focul lenth of 24mm, or 28mm.. 24&28 is not wide enough.

I still think the 17-85 is the best bet.
He could also carry a 50 1.4 or something along those lines in his jacket pocket for bokeh fun.

[galadriel]

Thanks! Iam really glad I found this forum as Iam filled with questions and love the quick response!

[galadriel]

Oh by the way Bruce ,what is bokeh?
Sandra

[Nightcrawler]

I've also been thinking about the Sigma 24-60 f2.8 lately. Anyone have that lens?

[galadriel]

Hi Bruce, thanks for the suggestions! I am a novice ,Will yiu explain to me what bokeh is?
Thanks,
Sandra


What will he do about landscape shots if he gets a lens with a minimum focul lenth of 24mm, or 28mm.. 24&28 is not wide enough.

I still think the 17-85 is the best bet.
He could also carry a 50 1.4 or something along those lines in his jacket pocket for bokeh fun.

[mr.photoguy]

Hi Bruce, thanks for the suggestions! I am a novice ,Will yiu explain to me what bokeh is?
Thanks,
Sandra
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/40106377.jpg

I hope my explanation is good, if someone wants to add...please do.
Bokeh has to do with the ability of a lens to seperate the Object of interest from the background, while bluring the background to the point of being out of focus. Usually Lenses with more Aperature blades will have better bokeh than lenses with less Aperature blades.

Still there is more to it...
check out this article here..
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml

btw: welcome to the forum, and congrats on the camera.

[booggerg]

I don't have this, but I would think the 35mm f/1.4 would be a great walk-around on a 1.6x camera... otherwise, the 17-40 f/4L is superb also.

[k2kv]

Bokeh, really, is not exactly the "ability" to separate the object of interest from the background. This would be better called, "narrow depth of field."

Rather, Bokeh is the term used to define the QUALITY of the out of focus areas. For example, the Canon 70-300 DO lens can easily create narrow depth of field images, but the bokeh from this lens has often been called, "a little odd," due to the unique construction of the lens. By comparison, the 70-200 series of L lenses all produce gorgeous bokeh, whose effect can be even further enhanced by the 2.8's ability to produce even narrower depth of field. But, depth of field and Bokeh are two different issues.

Hope that helps.

[skyphix]

I second the 17-40L ... I dont have one personally, but I usually find myself in that range on my Kit Lens and have heard nothing but excellent reviews on it.

[mr.photoguy]

thanks K2kv for clearing it up ...
I was trying to figure a way to explain the out of focus area clearly.

I like the 17-40L, and am also contemplating one,(or 10-22&28-75f2.8), but I think being limited to only 40 on the zoom side would cause her to miss a lot of shots with just having this lens as her walk around on a trip.

Ofcourse we are assuming she will have one lens mounted on the camera, and that is it.
Unless she want's to carry two.

[Hellashot]

Consider the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5

[galadriel]

Thanks to all for the lesson on bokeh!! I will more than likely be carrying more than one lense so if 2 would give me a good base to work from for my interests what would be a good compliment to the17-40?

[JAZZ D.P.G.]

28-135 f/3.5-5.6 USM IS is my vote. Inexpensive and usually good quality.

Some width, some reach, 3.5 gives some ability with low light. A decent "overall" lens.

Low cost with decent results. Note: Get the optional hood when you purchase the lens.

Welcome to the forum, the best place to get as many good opinions as you could possibly want, with a minimum of BS.

Good luck

[Delicious]

What about the Canon 24-85 F3.5-4.5 USM?

[CyberDyneSystems]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56752

[Kadath]

Tamron 24-75 2.8 definitly has my vote, and my purchase.

Sam

[mr.photoguy]

Thanks to all for the lesson on bokeh!! I will more than likely be carrying more than one lense so if 2 would give me a good base to work from for my interests what would be a good compliment to the17-40?
my opinion ...
17-40L
70-200 f4L

other option
10-22 ef-s <~~~ for landscapes
Tamron 24-75 f2.8 <~~~ mid focal
if u need it 70-200 f4L. <~~ candids & far shots.

[james12345]

My new Tamron 28-75 just shipped, so I will be seeing my new baby on Tuesday! Wohooo!

[galadriel]

hi to all,
I am leaning towards the 17- 40 and the 70-200f4L but was wondering what the 70-200f2.8Lcan do that the f4l cannot ? the price is considerably more so i probably won't get it now ,just curios... Bruces suggestion looked interesting too ..10-22 efs.. tamron 24-75 and the 70 200 f4fs do you think 10-22 has as good an optical quality as the 17-40? since Imay want to enlarge to 11 by 14 sometimes? thanks to yo all for the suggestions i am so excited about getting this new equipment and cutting loose with it.. I have soooo much to learn its just awesome. what is the price on the tamron anyone know?Sam...
thanks to all ya,
Sandra

[Tom W]

Tamron 24-75 2.8 definitly has my vote, and my purchase.

Sam

Although it only goes down to 28 mm, its still a well-regarded lens.

[cactusclay]

If you want excellent image quality and money is not a factor, then 24-70 2.8

[Citizensmith]

Thanks to all for the lesson on bokeh!! I will more than likely be carrying more than one lense so if 2 would give me a good base to work from for my interests what would be a good compliment to the17-40?

I carry a 17-40 and an 85 1.8. They cover 90% of my photography and are both fantastic lenses. The 17-40 is very good, just a little short to be a general purpose lens. Adding the 85 gives you a fast lens, some extra range, and some of the best portraits going.

This was from my 85 tonight. Indoors, dark outside and no flash. ISO800, 1/80 f/4. Lovely lens.

[eosster]

EF 17-40 F/4L gets my vote, (little bias for me as you can see I have this baby).

[k2kv]

I go along with the 17-40 F4 and 70-200 F4 idea. As a walk around kit, they are not too heavy in combo, offer gorgeous optics, and give you great range. Nice and wide, nice and long. You can move your feet a bit to get everything else in the middle, if you really need it.

The 70-200 F2.8 is considerably heavier than the F4, but does give you the extra speed. And, of course, once you start to think in these terms, you will likely want to consider the 70-200 F2.8 IS (the big brother), heavier yet, but the IS gives you lots of options.

I have the big lens, and I am often conflicted about taking it along, unless I am specifically going out shooting.

Best of luck!

[kiwimichael]

Hi Sandra,

hi to all, I am leaning towards the 17- 40 and the 70-200f4L

In my opinion a good choice which given the 1.6 crop factor of the 20D will give you an effective range of 27-64 and 112-320. Reasonable wide-angle at the low end and a reasonable telephoto at the high end. By adding the 1.4X Teleconverter you can extend the effective range of the 70-200 to 156-448/5.6 with more than acceptable quality! These are the lenses that I have.

If you are considering only one lense, I would seriously consider the EF-S 17-85/4-5.6 IS. It is the equivalent of the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS on a full frame camera and it is considered by many as one of the favourite 'walk-around' lenses.

The 70-200/2.8 gives you one extra stop which is usefull if you shoot a lot in low light situations. The 70-200/2.8 IS gives you an extra stop or two.

Cheers
Michael

[tim]

I have the Tamron 28-75, it stays on my camera 90% of the time. I rarely wish for wider, but I often wish for longer. For a walkaround lens it's pretty good, but it depends where you're walking and what you like taking photos of.

[hedphonz]

i would suggest the 24-70L, though i have the 28-105 and works great for what i do.

[james12345]

what filter size does the tamron 28-75 use? getting my lens on tuesday and would like to know. also how much should i spend on the filter (UV filter)?

sorry for the newbie questions, but need to know.

thanks in advance!

james

[flyfisher]

I use the 28-105 and have never had any problems but it's not L quality.

[mr.photoguy]

Point blank, if your going to do any landscapes, any lens that starts at 24mm or 28mm will upset you unless you have a 10-22 to complement it. or the 17-40 .

The 10-22 is really wide, I also hear the image quality is good.. I reviewed some of the images from the 10-22 on pbase, and they see pretty good. Nice contrast, no vigneting. I am still confused as I don't know if I want to purchase a 10-22 or a 17-40 ...
If you like really really wide shots, you may want the 10-22. I am really starting to lean in that direction.

As for 70-200f4 v.s 70-200 f2.8
I think they are both sharp lenses. The 2.8 wil give you narrower DOF though. Although when I am doing potraits I don't have much issue with the f4. I have to admit either one will serve you well.

I just wouldn't want to walk around with a 2.8/ or 2.8IS everyday for 7 days . They are just to weighty. Check out the images from the 10-22 on pbase, and see if that interests you ...

If you even wanna chat on yahoo or aim..
hit me up .... I love talking to any, and every one about photo's.
yahoo - dbest1a
aim - I2ookurpic

[galadriel]

I carry a 17-40 and an 85 1.8. They cover 90% of my photography and are both fantastic lenses. The 17-40 is very good, just a little short to be a general purpose lens. Adding the 85 gives you a fast lens, some extra range, and some of the best portraits going.

This was from my 85 tonight. Indoors, dark outside and no flash. ISO800, 1/80 f/4. Lovely lens.
Thanks for the imput he looks like he totally enjoyed that meal!
Sandra

[galadriel]

Hey bruce thanks for your time and input!.... decisions .. decisions
sandra

[galadriel]

W e had a really nice sunny day in missouri ,so I took my dog and my current camera olympus 50-50 ( bought the 20D on e bay and still waiting for arrival) out for a walk. had my dog on a short leash and camera in hand with a big bulky wide angle conversion lense .. well my dog bolted I stumbled and the camera crashed and burned! the heavy lense broke the entire main lense right off .man I would be seriously bumming if I didn't have the 20d on the way ..It is still sad to lose my old friend though. My husband glued it back on but it is making a sick and disturbing noise when turned on... Ok , I learned my lesson didn't have the strap around my hand. never again!
hope it comes soon..
Sandra

[mr.photoguy]

hmm... you know they sell a few different hand straps that you can use.
I have one .. This is what it looks like this ..
http://www.pbase.com/brucescott/image/38101319

If I am going somewhere where it is crowded I will put that on.
They have the shorter ones also though that work good as well.
You may want something like that if your dog has a lot of Jerk to his Pull.

[Kadath]

down to 28 mm

Yeah yeah yeah, I make that mistake every time I write the lens down =)

I definitly would like a wider lens to complement it, but for walking around stuff I haven't found too many situations where I _need_ wider, cept maybe multistory buildings, and I rarely cant step back a few steps to get it.

[Wavy C]

my current camera olympus 50-50 .... crashed and burned!
Sandra

I have the Olympus 5050 too and kept it after buying a 20D. The Olympus is a great camera - amazingly sharp lens and very accurate focus. After you study the settings you are almost guaranteed to get a good picture.

I expected the 20D to be a big step up - but have to say that when you first start using it you may be a little disappointed when you compare the pictures with those from the Olympus. The 20D takes a LOT more getting used to. My first pictures were coming out very soft and a lot were out of focus. Things only started to improve when I turned off the multi-focus points and started using the middle one only. Slowly I'm getting used to it, and am finally starting to get some better results. There is now doubt that the 20D's bigger sensor will give better pictures - but you will have to work a little harder to get them.

Sorry to hear your Olympus got broken. I like the 20D, but I love the Olympus too!

[Toogy]

67mm

I have a Hoya HMC Filter on mine, it works good. Take a look on ebay for cheap Hoya Filters. Make sure to get at least a HMC Filter or better.



what filter size does the tamron 28-75 use? getting my lens on tuesday and would like to know. also how much should i spend on the filter (UV filter)?

sorry for the newbie questions, but need to know.

thanks in advance!

james

[RJSorensen]

I sure love my walk around lens . . . the Canon EFS 17-85. It lets you get in tight, and yet can zoom to fill the view finder. The shots look good and the better EX series flash units talk to the lens to make your flash photography so much nicer than in the past. Fill flash is also very nice . . . I have started to use it a lot. There is a lot of range in this lens and it is light as these items go. It is not a cheep lens by any means, it is a EFS however so only the D Rebel and 20D get to use it . . . I think it the single best compromise, lol, or combat lens as I call it.