One lens to cover multiple purposes.. Or just pick one?

Alright, I need some opinions! I cannot pick one and it's been driving me nuts for weeks upon weeks. Right now I just have a Sigma 30 1.4, Canon 50 1.8, and Canon 55-250 for lenses with my 60D. Generally I enjoy landscape the most but have been increasingly enjoying portraiture over the last year or so and that has caused me to get a speed light/umbrella stand setup with a reflector to that end.

I find myself missing having the range of my old kit lens on my old T2i. I have used the Canon 10-22 for a day last spring in NYC which was fun for some building and street shots but other than those, looking back at my pictures in Aperture I don't really see any of my landscapes where I was in dire want of more than 18mm outside of being in downtown NYC. However, I also want to have a longer prime for portraits to compliment my 30 and 50 so I can have the trinity of 50, 85, and 135 equivalents on my crop body. I am thinking 85 1.8 for example. At the same time, I shoot recitals and concerts for fun at my college and sometimes the school has used a picture of mine, or a friend asks me or offers to pay me to photograph their recital. I haven't accepted any pay thus far due to my lack of confidence in my telephoto lens in those situations. I also sometimes photograph sports(airsoft, soccer), and in the airsoft case it is in the woods where lighting is often dim from tree cover making a fast shutter speed impossible. I find myself wanting above all, a sharp lens. I had the 75-300 with my old T2i which in all but perfect lighting drove me nuts, and have stepped up to the 55-250 and will be trying that at the next concert. My second want in a lens is it to be fast for times when the light isn't ideal so I can keep the shutter speed up for a crisp, sharp photo. As a note, in the recitals and concerts I always bring my tripod, but obviously for the other uses in outdoor sports that isn't an option.

Now that I've ranted and given some idea of what I shoot and what am looking for in a lens, this is the list of the lenses I have considered or are considering currently.

Tamron 17-50 non-vc
Tokina 11-16 2.8
Canon 15-85
Canon 85 1.8
Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS
Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 VC
Canon 70-300 IS?
Canon 17-40L
Canon 24-105L

Many of these are very different animals, I know. The wide angle is not my immediate need, and if I had to, I could save to rent one for the 10 days I'll be in Italy in May. I will, and have considered selling one of my lenses, or all and starting over. The largest debate was selling my sigma 30 and getting the Tamron 17-50 IF it would replace the prime well enough for my uses and then I could use my money for a longer prime or telephoto instead.

As you can probably tell, I am going a bit batty with all these possibilities, and probably have written quite enough already. My budget would be $500 or less preferably. It can flex a little if I think its worth it. So, please do weigh in and give any insight on any of these lens options for my needs according to your experience with them and help me out. Thanks so much for your time.

You have the 50mm 1.8 which can be used for portraits (either full body, half body, or headshots). On a crop you can get away with a 50mm for headshots since it will give you the same working distance as an 85mm on a full frame. You are also given a nice wide aperture to get a nice shallow depth of field.

With that being said, if you want landscapes I would focus on a wider lens. So I would be looking at the following:
Canon 24-105 f/4L
Canon 17-40L
Canon 15-85L

They will be great for landscapes AND as a general purpose walk around lens. I have the 24-105 and absolutely love it. It is great on the wide end for doing landscapes and gives me enough range to capture moments at home or when out on a walk. These can be purchased "used" from people who bought a kid and dont want the lens. But I think they usually go for about 700 bucks.

Another SUPER cheap option would be, just pick up an 18-55mm kit lens. They are cheap and they are fantastic little lenses. I think they can be had for about 150. If I were in your shoes, that is what I would be looking at. Then you would have a nice combo with the 18-55 and 55-250 along with some primes.

EDIT: Looks like you can get a used one for about $85. Amazon is really good about protecting buyers as well.
http://www.amazon.com …sed&qid=1382579​407&sr=1-1

Ratjack wrote in post #16394304
So I would be looking at the following:
Canon 24-105 f/4L
Canon 17-40L
Canon 15-85L

It would be great if the 15-85 was an L lens...

I would put the new 18-135 STM in the discussion with the 15-85 for a high quality, sharp, walk around lens. Since you don't need wider than 18mm, as you have said, I would go for the cheaper, lighter and STM added, 18-135 STM.

The 24-105 is not wide enough - though it's a better lens. More of a full frame solution.

I liked the 17-40 on my Rebels but it also is more of a full framer and has limited range.

Add the 85 1.8, sell the 55-250 and get Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX OS or Canon 70-200 2.8 if you know you will be in low light events. Otherwise 70-300 Lis or 70-200 F4 Lis

OR
as Eastpot said, you cant go wrong with the 15-85 or 18-135 STM.

Need more light 17-50 Tammy or Sig or Canon 17-55 all 2.8

I'll read up on the new STM and the 15-85 some more tonight, thanks.

@Bianchi, it seems you have only added one possibility and otherwise repeated what I've already said or realize I would want. Any further experience or help you can give? Also, I assume you mean 85 1.8 right?

You've got quite a few options running through your head and some complex reasoning for/against each option. I'll try not to complicate things more. To answer the topic/question, define a use and then choose a lens. It sounds as if you aren't willing to sacrafice image quality for a true multipurpose lens...I tend to think the same way.

You talk about landscapes, portraits, and a low light capable lens in the telephoto range. With the lens lineup you have now, you can cover landscapes and portraits. So why not choose a telephoto prime for the recitals, which will also serve nicely for portraits? With that mindset, I think it becomes simple. If you think you may move to full frame in the future, get the 135L. If you plan to stay on a crop camera, get an 85mm. Either way, you really can't go wrong.

Tamron 17-50 or canon 15-85 or, as said the new 18-135. I have both the tamron 17-50 and the sigma 30, and I don't feel like the tamron replaces it for low light. F2.8 is not F1.4.

That $500 budget could present a problem here.

saxplaya wrote in post #16394528
I'll read up on the new STM and the 15-85 some more tonight, thanks.

@Bianchi, it seems you have only added one possibility and otherwise repeated what I've already said or realize I would want. Any further experience or help you can give? Also, I assume you mean 85 1.8 right?

I missed your budget of $500, with that, my only suggestion would be the 85 1.8

The 15-85 is a great walk around day lens, its not fast and would not benefit you in low light area's unless flash is used.

The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 & and Canon 70-200 2.8, either would be a nice compliment to your 30 50 and possible 85, as they to are fast lenses, good for low light, where as the 70-300 Lis and the 70 200 F4 lis are better suited for when you have good light.
Theses are some that you could consider adding to your kit down the road when your budget changes.

The only problem I have is the 30 not being wide enough for landscape. Even 24 for some on a crop is not wide enough... That's where the 15-85 comes in, but now you don't have fast glass, that would require a flash.

Decisions, compromises.... that's what it always boils down to.
Here's another idea that just came to me, keep your fast trinity 30,50,85, and get a 14 Samyang for landscape, pretty reasonable lens with good IQ

24-105 would be a good choice. He may start to go into Full Frame soon if he likes wide ange shooting. Therefore buying an EF-s would be a bad choice.

If you are on a tight budget, forget about "going full frame"... That will always cost more. FF cameras are more expensive, as are the lenses for FF. Besides, with all the choices you have for use on a quality crop camera such as the 60D, there isn't a lot of incentive to go FF, unless you plan to make really large prints.

For landscape, you probably will want a wider lens. The most affordable options for wider lenses on a crop camera are all zooms. Within your budget, I'd look for a used Tokina 12-24/4 or Sigma 10-20mm HSM (variable aperture version) or Canon EF-S 10-22mm. You should be able to pick up one of the Toki's or Siggies used for under $400, maybe as low as $300, leaving as much as possible toward your next purchase (see below). The Tokina is currently selling for $430 new, while the Sigma has increased in price to $600 (was under $500 just a few months ago). Among all the ultrawides, the Canon 10-22mm would be my first choice for image quality and overall performance, and has recently been on sale for $600, plus the cost of the lens hood ($33 for Canon, less for third party clones). Used ones should be a little less.... but due to the popularity of this lens it holds it's value well, so don't expect very big discounts on used.

Either increase your budget or live with what you've got for portraits for now and start saving up to add a Canon EF 85/1.8 when you can. New it's a sub-$400 lens (currently $340, plus around $25 for a lens hood that's sold separately). You also might be able to find it used for a little less. Again, due to popularity it holds value well and won't be discounted a great deal used.

The total for one of the wide zooms and the fast prime will end up a bit more than your current budget... $600 to $800 or a bit more, depending upon whether you buy used or new and how lucky you are finding good deals.

Some comments on to your list:

Tamron 17-50 non-vc - decent inexpensive walkaround/midrange, good image quality and f2.8 aperture, but not really wide enough for a landscape or long enough for your portrait needs, plus it has pretty slow focus.

Tokina 11-16 2.8 - sharp and well built, but prone to flare, higher priced and a very narrow range of focal lengths... all just to get f2.8 which most people don't need on an ultrawide lens anyway.

Canon 15-85 - a very nice walkaround/midrange zoom, wider than most yet with nice tele range and excellent image quality as well. But it's f3.5-5.6 (slowest at the tele end, where you will want large apertures the most)... it's good, but not really ideal for either landscapes or portraits... plus it duplicates other focal lengths you already have and is well over your budget.

Canon 85 1.8 - recommended for portaiture... see above.

Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS - this essentially replaces your 55-250, but without IS and with less range of focal lengths, at considerably higher cost. You might find a used one within your budget, but not new. Usable for portraiture, but not much more-so than your 55-250 and doesn't really address your landscape shooting needs. You mention sports/action, and might want to get this lens eventually for it's fast/accurate focus (though I'd recommend saving a little more and getting the IS version instead... it's a newer design and a little sharper than the non-IS version, too... rivals the latest and greatest f2.8 IS Mark II for sharpness, in fact).

Tamron 70-300 4.5-5.6 VC - same issues as the 70-200, except having VC is a plus, while the variable aperture is a minus. If it's a USD lens, it would be faster and more accurate focusing than the 55-250. If it's not USD, it will be slower focusing.

Canon 70-300 IS - same issues as the 70-200, except having IS is a plus, while the variable aperture is a minus. If it's a USM lens, it will have faster & more accurate AF than the 55-250. Though I know some folks who use 70-300 for sports in good light, unless you spend a lot to get the L version it won't be as well built or have the same AF performance as the Canon 70-200.

Canon 17-40L - Not very wide on a crop camera. I had a 17-35/2.8L that I sold and replaced when I went from full frame (film) to crop DSLR... it wasn't wide enough. By the time you are spending what the 17-40L costs for use on a crop camera, you really should get the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM instead... it's a full stop faster, has IS, has a bit more reach at the long end, and has as good or better image quality. It's not as well built as the premium L-series lens, but is solid Canon mid-grade build. Either 17-40 or 17-55 are solild walkaround/midrange zooms... But they are only moderately wide on a crop camera, not really wide enough for landscape, nor really long enough to add anything to your portrait capabilities.

Canon 24-105L - Yet another walkaround/midrange zoom. Not wide at all on a cropper. And as an f4 lens, will leave you wanting a larger aperture for portraiture at times. Besides, it sells for more than double your stated budget. If you get serious, track down a good used 28-135 IS for around $250 instead... it gives you everything the 24-105 does for 1/4 the price, just has a variable f3.5-5.6 aperture and not as well built/sealed as the L-series (but not bad either, it's mid-grade build).

FYI: I am currently experimenting with a Tamron SP 60/2.0 macro/portrait lens instead of my 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. It's a crop only lens, but is the only macro with larger than f2.8 aperture, making for nicer background blurs in portraits (actually there is also the Zeiss 100/2 ZE, but it's manual focus only and very expensive). If you don't shoot any macro, it might not be your cup of tea. But for me, when I want to travel light it might replace three lenses in my camera bag... the two portrait primes and a macro. The only shortcoming I've found is that it's not fast focusing (it's not been upgraded with Tamron's USD focus yet), so isn't very useful for sports/action shooting. Cost me $400 after a $100 rebate recently.

In summary, I'd recommend:

For landscape choose from the Canon 10-22mm (best), Tokina 12-24/4 (2nd best) or Sigma 10-20 w/variable aperture (3rd best).

For portraiture, get the Canon 85/1.8. This lens has fast focus and also can be used for sports, when the focal length is enough.

Start saving up toward a 70-200 or other sports oriented lens, to upgrade from your 55-250.... but live with that in the meantime. Oh, and be aware you might have trouble getting the larger, off-white 70-200mm into concerts and sporting events (tho the f4 versions are a little smaller and less intrusive than the f2.8 versions). Some venues prohibit what they perceive to be larger "pro" lenses... While a more compact, black 70-300 or 55-250 might sneak by.

Eventually you may want a mid-range/walkaround zoom. Since you have and use several fast primes, you might not need an f2.8 mid-range zoom. You have several good ones on your list already, might want to add 24-70/2.8... Canon Mk II if you win the lottery... or Tamron with VC... the Sigma is popular and well-regarded, too.

Oh, and by the way, I frequently use tripods and monopods at outdoor sporting events. Not sure what your problem is with that.

You have 2 fast primes for portraits; and don't need much wider than 18; and have 55-250 covered already, so Canon 15-85. Convenience you were looking for; a little wider than you think you need (always good), and nice and sharp.

w0m wrote in post #16395868
You have 2 fast primes for portraits; and don't need much wider than 18; and have 55-250 covered already, so Canon 15-85. Convenience you were looking for; a little wider than you think you need (always good), and nice and sharp.

Good analysis. But ignores the $500 budget.

15-85 is $699

18-135 STM is $549

Given that the IQ is nearly the same (each is better at certain settings; one may be sharper at some, have more CA at others etc.), if the focal length works for both, get the cheaper one.

Thanks everyone. As I said, the budget can be a bit flexible if I think it'll be worth it. If I sell something else, it may go up substantially. As of now, I'm leaning towards the Tokina 12-24 and 85 1.8 combo. Both used I can wait for good prices and get them both for $600-$650.

Now, say my budget went up to $1000~. How would your recommendations change if at all?

[QUOTE=saxplaya;163959​84]Thanks everyone. As I said, the budget can be a bit flexible if I think it'll be worth it. If I sell something else, it may go up substantially. As of now, I'm leaning towards the Tokina 12-24 and 85 1.8 combo. Both used I can wait for good prices and get them both for $600-$650.

Now, say my budget went up to $1000~. How would your recommendations change if at all?[/QUOTE

Canon EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS. Should be obtainable used or refurb for that price. Since you say that the wider end isn't a priority, it should be perfect for landscape work, as well as a for a walk around lens. It does tend to have flare issues when shooting into a bright light source (not to the point of being unusable), so that is a consideration, but it may be the best IQ of any EF-S lens, easily rivaling the "L's". When mine was stolen last year, I went nuts for 3 months until I was able to replace it. It's the one lens in my kit that I really can't do without.