General Purpose Lens for a 40D

[MMeaney]

So I would guess that this question has come up before. But, I'm looking to buy myself a general purpose lens for my 40D. I really just want a versatile zoom lens, but I don't have much money to spend. I just want a good starting lens for now.

I do lots of urban exploration photography, so that involves lots of low-light photography, but I also like nature, landscape, and action photography, as well as some other urban photography. I haven't tried portraits much, but that doesn't mean I won't ever try them.

Anyways, I was initially looking at the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM but I'm a bit worried that the 28mm won't be wide enough for general use. Especially while urban exploring and taking landscape photos. So now I'm considering the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I like the faster speed, but 50mm seems a little short. I've also found that I could get a Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS and a Canon EF 80-200mm USM together for less that one of the other lenses I've mentioned (I'll definitely be buying used).

Now, my mind isn't fixed on any of these lenses, and I'm completely open to suggestions. I'm gonna look through some Flickr groups for these lenses to get a sense of how they all perform. So any opinions, recommendations, or what have you would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for all the help!

[MMeaney]

I guess I should mention that I generally do a mix of handheld photography, or carry a tripod around depending on where I'm shooting. I do a lot of long-exposure shots, so a lens that functions well with long-exposures.

[tonylong]

I'll just say -- a very commonly advised "kit" of lenses is the 18-55 IS, the 55-250 IS and then for low-light shooting the 50mm f/1.8. Each of these lenses is pretty inexpensive but good "bang for the buck". I'd suggest you get those three, stretch them to their limits and get your money worth, and then decide where you want to go from there!

[flowrider]

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 can be had pretty cheaply used as well.

[rick_reno]

15-85 is good on that body

[eerfmaps]

Since you do photography in low light situations, the 2.8 of the Tamron would be a big advantage over the 4.0 of the 28-135 and 18-55 (at 50mm). It's also (generally) a very sharp lens for the price. Do you have a particular number in mind as far as budget goes? If you could manage to scrounge up enough for the 17-50 (non-VC) and Canon's 55-250, you'd be pretty set for most of your needs. If you really don't want to spend that much, then I'd try to go for the 18-55, 55-250, 50mm combo as mentioned above. It's just too hard to cover all your needs with one cheap lens. If you're just starting out, I think you'll be satisfied with the quality you get out of those lenses. And when you're experienced enough to need more, you may well have honed your shooting desires enough to know what you need most, a fast lens, a wide lens, more reach, etc.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by flowrider

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 can be had pretty cheaply used as well.

I used one of these on my 40D and it worked a treat.

[Veemac]

IMO the best compromise is the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 OS. Wider and faster than the 28-135, longer and faster than the 18-55, longer and less expensive than the 17-50, faster and less expensive than the 15-85, longer and far less expensive than the 17-55. It's by far my favorite general purpose/walkaround lens on my 50D.

[dultim8]

+1 for the Sigma 17-70.
I am looking to add this lens to my kit also.
It seems that there isn't a huge following on here for that lens but from the sample photos posted on this site it seems pretty good for the price.

[ChunkyDA]

I got a 17-85 EF-S with my 40D and it serves me well as a general purpose lens.

[MMeaney]

Originally Posted by eerfmaps

Do you have a particular number in mind as far as budget goes?

Well I'll be buying the lens used to save some money, but still I can't really go over $400. I know this is a really small budget for a multi-purpose lens.

Right now I found someone selling the Tamron for $400, and the Sigma 17-70mm for $350. How well do these perform in low-light indoors with a tripod (basically what I mean by urban exploration)? I wouldn't say I'm looking for the best general use lens there is, just one I can get now to have a lens to use, so I can add to it later. I'd rather get one that I'll actually use for a while, not just replace the next chance I get. I'll be spending three months this summer on the Georgian Bay, so I want something that will be good for landscape photography as well.

Considering all this, what do you guys think of the Tamron vs. Sigma? Would it be better not to get third party lenses? I've used a Sigma 18-200mm on my 40D and I liked it a lot.

Would I miss the extra 20mm if I took the Tamron? Would I miss the speed of the Tamron?

Thanks for all the help, guys. I know these are a lot of questions; I just want to learn as much before I go out to buy a lens.

[tonylong]

As for "urban exploration", you might want to check out this thread on abandoned buildings:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=442895

There are some pretty amazing indoor shots. Yes, some of the people who post there are using top-of-the-line cameras and lenses, but a more common theme would be the use of HDR or another process for blending multiple exposures together. For this, your 40D and any decent wide-angle lens should work well, whether it be the Canon "kit" 18-55 or one of the third-party lenses. You'll be shooting with a tripod and at an aperture narrow enough to give you both a broad depth of field and to be shooting in the "sweet spot" for sharpness. The same goes for landscape shooting -- you will get your "pop" if you use good techniques with a tripod and learn to shoot Raw and properly "develop" your images -- the specifics of your lens and camera are less critical.

But for both of these types of shooting I emphacise "good technique" which includes the use of either a cable shutter release, a remote/wireless release, or at least a good technique using the self-timer!

[butcherman]

Love my Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 OS on my 40D

[watt100]

Originally Posted by MMeaney

So I would guess that this question has come up before. But, I'm looking to buy myself a general purpose lens for my 40D. I really just want a versatile zoom lens, but I don't have much money to spend. I just want a good starting lens for now.

I do lots of urban exploration photography, so that involves lots of low-light photography, but I also like nature, landscape, and action photography, as well as some other urban photography. I haven't tried portraits much, but that doesn't mean I won't ever try them.

Anyways, I was initially looking at the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM but I'm a bit worried that the 28mm won't be wide enough for general use. Especially while urban exploring and taking landscape photos. So now I'm considering the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I like the faster speed, but 50mm seems a little short. I've also found that I could get a Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS and a Canon EF 80-200mm USM together for less that one of the other lenses I've mentioned (I'll definitely be buying used).

Now, my mind isn't fixed on any of these lenses, and I'm completely open to suggestions. I'm gonna look through some Flickr groups for these lenses to get a sense of how they all perform. So any opinions, recommendations, or what have you would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for all the help!

ask in the lens section but you're right, 28mm won't be wide enough and the 18-55IS /55-250IS kit lens are sharper than the 28-135.
Look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 and Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-vc

[Sirrith]

+3 for the sigma 17-70 OS, it works a treat. The 17-70 you found for $350 is most likely one of the older non-OS versions.