Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 20 Dec 2015 (Sunday) 13:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

What's a good "walking around" lens?

 
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,693 posts
Gallery: 235 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7807
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:09 |  #16

tnp wrote in post #17826033 (external link)
Wanting something a bit sharper.

Do you have the STM version? You will have a hard time finding anything sharper. It is just as sharp as the much more expensive 17-55/2.8, and doesn't have its AF inconsistency.

The 18-55 STM puts the lie to the often-cited expression that You get what you pay for.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tnp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:09 |  #17

Bassat wrote in post #17826038 (external link)
A bit sharper than the 18-55 STM? Most L-lenses can't meet that requirement, at least over the focal length and aperture ranges this lens covers. Your limiting yourself to 24-70 II, and 70-200 II. Both good choices, I am sure, but a tad expensive.

No, not the STM. I think he was talking about the regular 18-55 kit lens that came with the camera. I don't have the STM.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,750 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 355
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
Post edited over 2 years ago by mwsilver. (2 edits in all)
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:11 |  #18

M_Six wrote in post #17826027 (external link)
Have to agree here. My most used lens by far, and I have quite a few lenses.

Yes, its a great walk around, but it really excels on a FF body. On a crop body it leaves you with a wide end 35mm equivalent angle of view of almost 39mm. If you don't need a general walk around which shoots wide then its not a problem. I think on crop the 15-85mm provides a more balanced wide angle to short/medium telephoto range with a 24-136mm equivalent angle of view.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,750 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 355
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:21 |  #19

Bassat wrote in post #17826038 (external link)
A bit sharper than the 18-55 STM? Most L-lenses can't meet that requirement, at least over the focal length and aperture ranges this lens covers. Your limiting yourself to 24-70 II, and 70-200 II. Both good choices, I am sure, but a tad expensive.

He never said he had an 18-55 STM, unless I missed it. He just said 18-55.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab, Elements 15

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tnp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:42 |  #20

Another thing I don't like about my 18-55 kit lens is that the front rotates, so I can't use filters.

I was going through some stuff in storage the other day and came across my very old Sigma 28-105 that I had back in my film days. Haven't tried it yet to see how sharp it is, but so far I have found most of my old film camera lenses to be lacking in sharpness compared to newer lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Avatar
6,693 posts
Gallery: 235 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 7807
Joined May 2008
Location: Calgary
     
Dec 20, 2015 14:56 |  #21

tnp wrote in post #17826087 (external link)
Another thing I don't like about my 18-55 kit lens is that the front rotates, so I can't use filters.

I was going through some stuff in storage the other day and came across my very old Sigma 28-105 that I had back in my film days. Haven't tried it yet to see how sharp it is, but so far I have found most of my old film camera lenses to be lacking in sharpness compared to newer lenses.

My experience too. Even the great legendary lenses from the film days are crappy by today's standards.

Extreme example: The Pentax SMC Takumar 500mm f/4.5, a lens so expensive and exotic most could only dream about them back in the day. I got a copy and found the IQ terrible. The out-of-focus CA was so bad, you could see it in the viewfinder. But people raved about the lens back then. Of course it had only 4 elements. By comparison, today's Canon 500 II has 16 elements. So yes, there has been significant improvement.

Similarly, the Takumar 100mm macro, famed for its sharpness, was no match for my Canon 70-300mm zoom with 500D closeup lens attached.

Even in the digital age we see significant improvements with time. The 15-85mm was lauded in its day only a few years ago. The current 18-55mm STM is quite a bit better. Of course it doesn't have the zoom range.

What will the future bring?


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK
Donate to POTN here

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,947 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 868
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
Post edited over 2 years ago by M_Six.
     
Dec 20, 2015 15:50 |  #22

mwsilver wrote in post #17826048 (external link)
Yes, its a great walk around, but it really excels on a FF body. On a crop body it leaves you with a wide end 35mm equivalent angle of view of almost 39mm. If you don't need a general walk around which shoots wide then its not a problem. I think on crop the 15-85mm provides a more balanced wide angle to short/medium telephoto range with a 24-136mm equivalent angle of view.

True, but I've never found that to be limiting, even when my only body was my 7D. I have many great shots of our 1st trip to the UK using the 24-105 on my 7D. If I needed a wider shot, I just took two overlapping shots and stitched them together in PS. My 24-105 is supremely sharp, so it's my Go-To lens when I can carry just one. Plus the IS is amazing.

1/8 sec handheld.

IMAGE: http://bimmermail.com/UK2012/Day%20Ten/tb31-sm.jpg

Multi-shot pano with the 24-105

IMAGE: http://bimmermail.com/UK2012/Day%20Two/sh-pano01-sm.jpg

Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tnp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 20, 2015 19:03 |  #23

Thanks for all the input, everyone. I think I've narrowed it down to the 15-85 or 18-135. Wouldn't mind having the STM version of the 18-55, but I think a little more reach would be better for what I like to shoot.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
steveo52
Member
Avatar
38 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2011
     
Dec 20, 2015 19:22 |  #24

I like the 24-105 f/4 IS, rented one recently and that's going to be the next I purchase.


Canon 70d, 18-135 kit lens, Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5, 70-200 f/4.0, 50 f1.8
Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 DC Macro OS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tnp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 20, 2015 19:27 |  #25

steveo52 wrote in post #17826379 (external link)
I like the 24-105 f/4 IS, rented one recently and that's going to be the next I purchase.

I'd love to have that lens, but being that I shoot landscapes in addition to wildlife and birds, I think I'd miss that wide end. If I had a full frame camera, that would be the lens I'd go for.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Buzz-01
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
17 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2009
Location: The Netherlands
     
Dec 21, 2015 18:24 |  #26

I am very happy with the 18-135mm IS STM as my new walkaround lens. Before, I have always used my Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-vc as my default walkaround lens, but I have found the STM to be just as sharp or sometimes even sharper than the 17-50.
Only in low light, the 17-50 really outperforms the STM.
Reason for me to buy the STM was the extra reach on the long end. I found 50mm to be a little too short for my walkaround lens.
I still use the 17-50 in low light conditions.


50D | 10-22mm | Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 | 18-135mm IS STM | 100mm 2.8 Macro | 70-300mm IS USM | 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tnp
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
149 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Oct 2015
     
Dec 21, 2015 18:43 |  #27

Buzz-01 wrote in post #17827623 (external link)
I am very happy with the 18-135mm IS STM as my new walkaround lens.

That's the one I decided to get. I think the 15-85 wouldn't give me the reach I want. I'm going to look for a used one. I've checked some closed sales and it looks like a good used one can be picked up for as low as $150.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,836 posts
Gallery: 22 photos
Likes: 1690
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Dec 21, 2015 18:47 as a reply to  @ tnp's post |  #28

Just make sure it's the STM version, and not the regular IS version


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 523
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Dec 21, 2015 19:30 |  #29

18-135 STM is the right choice. Any of the 24-xx L standard zooms are going to be unnecessarily heavy and leave you wanting for a wider view.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
14,748 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 4990
Joined Sep 2007
     
Dec 21, 2015 21:03 |  #30

Archibald wrote in post #17826105 (external link)
My experience too. Even the great legendary lenses from the film days are crappy by today's standards.

Extreme example: The Pentax SMC Takumar 500mm f/4.5, a lens so expensive and exotic most could only dream about them back in the day. I got a copy and found the IQ terrible. The out-of-focus CA was so bad, you could see it in the viewfinder. But people raved about the lens back then. Of course it had only 4 elements. By comparison, today's Canon 500 II has 16 elements. So yes, there has been significant improvement.

Similarly, the Takumar 100mm macro, famed for its sharpness, was no match for my Canon 70-300mm zoom with 500D closeup lens attached.

Even in the digital age we see significant improvements with time. The 15-85mm was lauded in its day only a few years ago. The current 18-55mm STM is quite a bit better. Of course it doesn't have the zoom range.

What will the future bring?

Woah there, I wouldnt go that far. I know that my $60 om 200 would give the 70-200ii a run for the money when sharpness is a concern. The om 24mm is probably a little better than the nikon 14-24 @ 24.

some of the older stuff are especially poor if you look at pre-80's lenses, and lenses that dont use high quality elements. I think it's an extreme exception to claim that zooms are better than primes, even newer zooms. Stopped down vintage primes can deliver very high IQ, even with high density sensors.


Sony A7rii/A7riii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

7,157 views & 33 likes for this thread
What's a good "walking around" lens?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is raymondwup4
720 guests, 367 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.