Need Advice: Travel Lens for 60D

I am researching some potential upgrades to my kit. I have three great primes that I love (28mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8). But I find myself wanting to travel light (as in fewer pieces of equipment, not necessarily weight) a lot, so a decent zoom or two would really fit well with what I want to do. That being said, I don't want just any zoom. I have a 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS currently and it does ok but not really the image quality or low light capability that I want.

I also plan to get a used 5D3/4 in the next couple of years, so I want to stick with EF lenses rather than going EF-S. I had considered the 15-85 and the 18-135 but neither seem to answer all my needs.

When I get the 5D3, my wish list would include the 17 TS-E, 17-40 f/4, and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. Those are all down the road type purchases.

For now, I am considering the 24-105 f/4L IS (I and II) and the 24-105 f/3.5-5.6. That range is good for my needs on my 60D for now, and will also serve me well on the full frame later.

My thoughts:
24-105 f/4L IS I: statistically insignificant differences in image quality as the version II (potentially?), but light weight and smaller
24-105 f/4L IS II : best of the three, but heavy; not sure I'd want to carry it all day
24-105 f/3.5-5.6: almost as good as the f/4 above (according to many reviews I've read), more affordable, and much lighter. I might not have issues carrying this all day. Issues with low light versus the f/4.


Which would rise to the top of your list? Which lenses not on this list would be high on your list to consider?

Devils advocate, if I wanted to stay with a crop sensor lens (EF-S), which ones offer the closest image quality to the L series glass in a similar focal length range as above? Perhaps I am wrong in thinking none of the non-L glass comes close to the L glass in image quality.

Thanks!

As a follow up, what is the general consensus regarding superb image quality glass for crop sensor cameras? If you wanted to cover the entire focal length of ultra wide to about 250 or so full frame equivalent, and maintain as good of image quality as possible, which lenses would you by for a crop body camera?

Thanks again!

Since your current kit starts at 28mm, you're on target by looking at the 24-105. For some, this is too tight at the wide end and that would mean frequent lens changes, which would not play out well. I have an 11-16mm to back up my 24-105 should I need to go ultra wide, but I seldom use it. It's nice to have for those times when nothing else will do.

The best we can do in an EF-S lens is the 17-55mm. I haven't heard a lot of traffic about the lens lately but it's highly regarded.

As to your second question, a kit for ultra wide to 250mm for a crop body:

11-16 f2.8 Tokina or the Canon equivalent 10-22f4-ish Both have good IQ, Tokina is brighter, Canon has a better range. My Tokina zooms so little it might as well be a prime, but the combination of price point, focal length, and speed make it a winner. I haven't heard a lot about the 11-24 canon, but at $2700 it ought to be an OK lens...

There are two camps in the standard range - 24-105 and 24-70. The 24-70 ii from canon is considered the best, with a Tamron edition a notch below but much more affordable. I enjoy the range that I get from my 24-105, and I don't have issues with it's IQ, and I am picky (but cheap...)

Of course, the ubiquitous 70-200 rounds out the range you are looking for. The Canon 70-200 ii is the one to beat.

$6500 in lenses for the best of the best, 11-200mm.
Forget about the 11-24 and get an 11-16, and we're at $4500
Stick with the trusty 24-105 and we're down to $3700
Get the Tamron 70-200 and we're down to $3200-ish

I will recommend one strategy this way - get the lens you want right away, it's cheaper than winding our way to it with upgrades, if you know you're hooked on the hobby.

You don't mention what kind of travel and themes you're in for.

If you are heading for one lens only, I'd recommend something faster than f/4 or f/3.5-5.6 that you mention.

I started out on my 60D with a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 and six years on I am still happy with it on both the 60D and 80D. You'll find lots of sample shots here on the forum.

The 60D with a 24-105L has been my casual walk around set-up for almost two years. It has seen many trips within those couple of years, including Boston, London, Rome and other towns in Italy.

I just parted ways with the 24-105L in favor of the 24-70L f/2.8 for the extra steps. I hope it was worth it, as the extra reach came in handy on many occasions.

A friend of mine travels the world, literally, with a T3i, 10-18, 18-55 II, 55-250. Nice light, total kit. She has taken excellent photos on 6 continents with this gear.

About which ef-s lenses offer L-IQ. The 10-18 (or 10-22) has no comparable L, therefore ef-s is the best you can get. I bought an 80D/18-55 STM in November. The 18-55 STM is sharper across the frame than my 17-40L, on the 80D. L isn't about just IQ; build, weather-sealing, and value retention come into play also. So do size and weight. The friend above tried my 70-200 f/4L. She prefers to carry her 55-250.

I've used many aspc cameras. I have to say that there is something about the t3i file that I like. I can't put my finger on it.

Frodge wrote in post #18277323
I've used many aspc cameras. I have to say that there is something about the t3i file that I like. I can't put my finger on it.

I don't know about that, but I do know she has some HUGE (20"x30"?) shots of Rome and Costa Rica hanging in her house. The look good. Don't let anyone tell you aps-c print size is 'limited'.

Do you really want to buy a bigger, heavier lens, for more money, with a narrower zoom range, just so you can use it at some indeterminate later date on a FF camera? I get the thought of future-proofing, but I'd think about spending less for a wider zoom range and having the better tool right now, and then you can still use it on the 60D after you get your FF body. And by then you might want a 24-70 instead.

Now if you really want the F/4, that's a different thing, of course.

I used to use the 18-200 on a 600D with great results. Versatile range and great image quality.

Frodge wrote in post #18277323
I've used many aspc cameras. I have to say that there is something about the t3i file that I like. I can't put my finger on it.

My T2i was a great camera to get started with. It was the first that could shoot 1080p. My 80D has improvements in frame rate and focusing, but IQ and high iso performance is not a quantum leap forward.

Thanks for the information everyone. After more thought, I think the future proofing is a bad idea. I think I'll go with what is best for the camera I have now. I'm fairly confident I'm going to find a used 15-85 and be happy with it. If I can't make great images with a 60D, Sigma 10-20, Canon 15-85, and Canon 55-250, along with my primes, then the problem is behind the gear not within it.

Thanks again.

bmaxphoto wrote in post #18277501
Thanks for the information everyone. After more thought, I think the future proofing is a bad idea. I think I'll go with what is best for the camera I have now. I'm fairly confident I'm going to find a used 15-85 and be happy with it. If I can't make great images with a 60D, Sigma 10-20, Canon 15-85, and Canon 55-250, along with my primes, then the problem is behind the gear not within it.

Thanks again.

That's a good perspective. Composition is king. Of course, since I'm terrible at that, I'm still seeking better equipment.

The 15-85mm was my 'always-on' lens when I had a 60D. Fantastic camera, that 60D.

Bassat wrote in post #18277521
The 15-85mm was my 'always-on' lens when I had a 60D. Fantastic camera, that 60D.

Same here.... My first DSLR was the 60D and I bought a used 15-85 to go with it.... it was stellar. My wife still uses the second one we bought... also used.

The newer 55-250 STM is also a great lens for the money and it's light, perfect for travel.