What's a good "walking around" lens?

tnp wrote in post #17826033
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.

Bassat wrote in post #17826038
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.

M_Six wrote in post #17826027
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.

Bassat wrote in post #17826038
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.

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.

tnp wrote in post #17826087
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?

mwsilver wrote in post #17826048
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.

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.

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

steveo52 wrote in post #17826379
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.

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.

Buzz-01 wrote in post #17827623
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.

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

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.

Archibald wrote in post #17826105
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.