need a wider all around travel lens + the usual urge to buy something

Hi recently went on vacation:

i brought an EOS M3 with 22mm and a 70D with 18-135 (brought a 35 IS prime, but never even mounted it)
(i have a canon 17-40, but it's only UWA on my 5D)

I noticed that i needed to go wider. like often.

options:

EF-S 10-18, super small, UWA, cheap ... but UWA (not all around)
EF-M 15-45, small and cheap ... hearing bad reviews about it, plus there's an unlock thing on the lens?
Tamron 16-300 VC PZD ... no background idea on this
EF-S 15-85 ... expensive?

other burning a hole in the pocket options (unrelated to travel):
tamron 85 1.8VC
tamron 45 1.8VC
tamron 24-70 2.8VC or canon 24-70 f/4 L IS

16-40 f/4 L IS or tamron 15-30 VC to replace my 17-40


just need people to bounce ideas with

So do you want wider with the 5D, 70D, or M3? Your suggestions are all over the map, so I'm having a hard time understanding what exactly it is you're looking for.

For what it's worth, I have a 70D with the 10-18. It gets the job done. The corners are a bit soft, and it's a pretty slow lens. They say the IS makes up for it, but I'd rather have the bigger aperture myself (I usually use wide angle indoors, and indoors is usually lower light). For the price though, it can't be beat, so I'd recommend it on that alone. It's certainly small and lightweight, which is nice. I don't dislike it, all things considered, but there are better options IQ-wise if you have the money.

Sounds like you have cash for something a bit more pricey. If I could to do it again, I'd consider the Tamron 11-16 f/2.8, but this is based on the shooting I do.

Why not the Canon 11-24? kidding...

Heya,

So ultrawide and 'all around' will basically not be on the same lens, unless by all around, you mean wide angle as the longest in the range. The 17-40 is a good example since you already have it and you know what it's like to go from 17mm on full frame to 40mm full frame. To do that on your APS-C's, you'd need a 11-24. The closest to that is basically the 10-22 which is an excellent crop ultrawide and walk around. The 10-18 is the other option, but is shorter, and comes with IS. Personally I'd want the 10-22, the extra range to me is worth it.

There is the EF-M 11-22 IS STM too ($400 new, you can get it cheaper used/bay) for the EOS-M series if you want a dedicated ultrawide and walk around.

I used to use a 650D + 10-22 as a common walk around, or just my EOS-M + 22 STM (just that lens, no zooms). I found the size difference between the 650D + 10-22 (it's not a small lens) and my 5D + 17-40 to not big significant enough of a difference to matter, so I sold my 10-22 and just use my 5D + 17-40 if I want that field of view setup. The 5D is bigger than the 650D of course, but, not enough to matter honestly. If I truly need a small setup to walk around with, I just use my EOS-M + 22. Powerful and small and I can happily shoot all day with the 22mm (35mm field of view full frame equivalent, a staple to me, wide enough to do it all, but not so wide that everything is dwarfed). These days, I leave all my wide stuff for full frame. My APS-C's are all hugging long telephotos mostly. Full frame just has more options for wide and ultrawide, especially in the fixed focal length categories.

I just let a friend of mine take my 650D + 18-55 STM to Japan for a 5 week vacation, will be interesting to see what he thinks, if it was wide enough, long enough, etc. It's small enough to look "consumer" while walking around. Light enough to not feel like a brick.

One thing that kind of is a bummer is constantly having to have two sets of lenses for the two systems. Wanting ultrawide & walk around on your APS-C's, while already having that on your full frame (17-40). In your situation, why do you feel the need to use the 70D + an ultrawide/walk around, versus your 5D + 17-40 or 24-105?

I generally just use the EOS-M + 22 when I want something compact. I don't have a 11-24 because the space-saving goes away when you put anything other than the pancake on the M series. So for me, M series is pancake-only. The moment I want a longer or wider lens, I just use a different camera.

That said, I'm starting to wonder, do you feel the need to use APS-C/FF for travel & walk around? Why not consider an actual compact camera? Like a G16?

Very best,

i need all around or wide or both on the crop bodies. i rarely bring the full frame body for travel

yeah, although EOS M options are on the table, i'd like the 70D to be the main all around body.

OK, for APSC walk around, the 15-85 is very good. I'd also consider the 17-55. I have the latter and it is excellent.

For APSC wide, there's the Canon 10-22, good for range,10-18, good for price and IS, or the Tamron 11-16 if low light is a concern.

Unfortunately you won't find both in one lens. These are the ones I would look at, but just IMHO. Have fun with the search

mike cabilangan wrote in post #18018111
yeah, although EOS M options are on the table, i'd like the 70D to be the main all around body.

When I think "all around" and APS-C, I think of:

17-55
15-85

Unfortunately there isn't something that goes wider than 15mm for APS-C and is a zoom with any longer telephoto ranges. 15-85 is pretty much unmatched in terms of the focal length and it's why it's still such a great lens.

Would love to see a 15-85 update from Tamron & Sigma to compete. Or something totally revolutionary from Sigma (they pretty much lead with lens development; imagine them dropping a 14-50 F4).

The 15-85 is really like a 24-135 on full frame. Do you feel you need wider than 24mm on full frame? Take a look at that field of view on your 5D +17-40 at 24mm.

It's like having the 24-105 but for APS-C. That's the 15-85.

Again, nothing comes close to the 15-85's range.

The 16-200+ super zooms are not as good, you compromise things to get that range. And 16mm is not the same as 15mm. It may only be 1mm as a number, but the angle is significant.

Very best,

you have a point. i could hit two birds with one stone with the 24-70 f/4 L IS (all around and the urge to get a stabilized 24-70)

ok, i've found someone selling both the 15-85 and 24-70 f/4 L IS

15-85 is cheaper and can be paid in installment basis (but overall, price diff should only be around 150usd)

so lightweight
70D + 15-85

or
5D3 + 24-70 f/4 L IS

I can't imagine a non-video reason to use a 70D+15-85 over a 5D3+24-70F4L if the price difference is only $150.

Very best,

While there is no perfect "do everything excellently' lens, the 24-70 mkII is great.
However it is not wider that 24mm, nor is it as fast a a prime and any of its local lengths.

Take it from someone who has tried and owned many completely different lenses.
Buy the best lens for the photos you want to create most.

If I found myself swapping mt 24L and my 100mm ALL THE TIME, I would buy a zoom.
If I needed a macro shot, I would't go out a get a 85L II

It's much more about the desire final photo, than it is about having a huge collection of 'just in case' lenses.
Sure in a perfect world I would choose to have 100+ expensive lenses to use whenever I felt like.
But I narrow down my lenses to ones that compliment my style, and each other when I do out shooting.

Best of luck to you in your search.

well only two reasons really.

weight and the built in pop up flash.

i had the 24-70 mk1 before, and it just didn't work out for me (heavy lens and shaky hands)

90% of my pictures this trip:

there are two reasons i want to replace the 18-135.

1) selfies with the wife and the SLR just couldn't fit both of us
2) MFD of the 18-135

mike cabilangan wrote in post #18018326
well only two reasons really.

weight and the built in pop up flash.

Hrm,

70D - 1.66lb
15-85 IS - 1.27lb
2.93lb

5D3 - 1.89lb
24-70 F4L IS - 1.32lb
3.21

0.28lb difference

Pop-up flash is pretty much a last ditch effort. If you really need a flash, that is compact, a 270EXII would be the minimum I'd take.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18018337
Hrm,

70D - 1.66lb
15-85 IS - 1.27lb
2.93lb

5D3 - 1.89lb
24-70 F4L IS - 1.32lb
3.21

0.28lb difference

Pop-up flash is pretty much a last ditch effort. If you really need a flash, that is compact, a 270EXII would be the minimum I'd take.

Just playing devil's advocate.

Very best,

wow, thank you for doing the math.

devil's advocate is much appreciated.

last two:
see the image above, it was shot at 118mm (converted to FF AOV), something the 24-70 won't be able to do
6 months to pay on the 15-85!