All round shooter lens

[syburn]

So I have my 10-22mm first lens. A rather strange beginner lens, but that was one of the reasons I wanted to go DSLR in the first place - to photgraph my interior projects with wide angle.

Next I need an all round shooter. I was going to go for the ES-F 18-85 untill I saw that most poeple go for 28-135mm according to the lens poll.

My question is this - which one? and if I go for the 28-135, will I miss the range between 22-28 that I will probably loose for ever (unless I get yet another lens
!)

Cheers - Simon

[scr7b]

I just recently got the 17-85 IS lens, and must say I'm very happy with it. I think it depends on your budget, if most people are going for the 28-135, it might be the price difference, or it might be that so many people had that lens from older film SLRs.

The 17-85 has 3rd Generation IS as opposed to 1st Generation on the 28-135.
The 28-135 will fit a full frame body, the 17-85 won't. I've consoled myself with the fact that I'll probably never get a full frame DSLR, and my film days are over, so EF-S isn't a problem for me.

Certainly, the 17-85 has a very useful range on a 20D. It's my perfect walkabout lens, and when I only carry my small toploader case with me, I can carry the 10-22 as well, and I have the perfect combination!

[T.O.]

Simon,

I am using the EF-S 17-85 IS USM as an allrounder and I am happy with it. If you don't want to loose the 22-28 range, recommended.

regards,
T.O.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

what about a Canon or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ? The canon is more expensive,t he sigma is reasonable and both are optically excellent.

[KevC]

The reason we all recommend the 18-55 is because it's cheap cheap cheap and a good wide angle. But you've got an awesome wide angle so there's really no reason to get the 18-55.

it all depends what you're shooting. There's the Sigma 24-70/24-60 if you need some reach with lower light capabilities. There's the 17-85 if you want a longer reach, but I think that one's way overpriced.

You should also consider some of the hyperzooms, the 18-125s, 18-200s aren't too bad optically. Of course it's nowhere near the 10-22 or 24-70s, but it'll give yo uthe flexibility you want!

Oh, and the range between 22-28 is really useful, I use the 18-30 range on my kit lens a lot (my other zoom starts at 35mm)

[condyk]

What most people go for isn't necesarily the best option. The lens you have is very nice indeed so if you get something like the user/travel friendly but softish 28-135 IS then you may find yourself disappointed when comparing images between the two - only you know if that will matter. The Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG Macro is a great new lens with the price, speed and quality to bring a smile to your face. Excellent buy with good reviews. If you want something as good optically but lighter in weight then the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a nice choice. I prefer my Sigma (I've had both) both optically and for build/weight and can't see me selling it for a long time.

[Hellashot]

I use my Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5 as my walkaround lens. Slightly wider than Canon's and wider appetures as well.

[weasel]

I can't imagine being without my 24-70L.

[Streetshooter]

I use the 24-85 for just about everything...great lens and it's relatively light....don

[MadMesh]

I sad in a different post, I used the 24-70L, and it was so nice to use, but for the $, i dont think it was that great. After using the 70-200L, it made me want to get the tamron 24-70 or 28-70 f/2.8 whatever it is... to replace the 24-70L. With the money saved, I can go buy a 10-22 and i would be in a smokin good position as far as range and good optics.

[mebailey]

I use my Canon 24-70 f2.8 for walking around. Might need a wider lens sometimes but its hard to beat for focus speed and sharpness (at least my copy).

[syburn]

Oh the 18-135 and 18-200 sound great as they will fill all the areas I probably will ever need, but will they be dark or have any other drawbacks.

Seems only made by Tamron and Sigma


Simon

[grego]

Depends what your defintion about all around shooter lens. For me, I use that 70-200mm f/2.8L all the time. Can do portraits, sports, low light. Basically anything out doors with lots of space and a lot of stuff indoors i need. Only drawback is the weight and size if you want a con.

[Raj]

Consider sigma 18-125 for reasonably wide to telephoto. It has decent reviews as a walk around lens. Not the brightest/fastest lense but does quite a good job for the money it comes for.