All round shooter lens

So I have my 10-22mm first lens. A rather strange beginner lens, but that was one of the reasons I wanted to go DSLR in the first place - to photgraph my interior projects with wide angle.

Next I need an all round shooter. I was going to go for the ES-F 18-85 untill I saw that most poeple go for 28-135mm according to the lens poll.

My question is this - which one? and if I go for the 28-135, will I miss the range between 22-28 that I will probably loose for ever (unless I get yet another lens
!)

Cheers - Simon

I just recently got the 17-85 IS lens, and must say I'm very happy with it. I think it depends on your budget, if most people are going for the 28-135, it might be the price difference, or it might be that so many people had that lens from older film SLRs.

The 17-85 has 3rd Generation IS as opposed to 1st Generation on the 28-135.
The 28-135 will fit a full frame body, the 17-85 won't. I've consoled myself with the fact that I'll probably never get a full frame DSLR, and my film days are over, so EF-S isn't a problem for me.

Certainly, the 17-85 has a very useful range on a 20D. It's my perfect walkabout lens, and when I only carry my small toploader case with me, I can carry the 10-22 as well, and I have the perfect combination!

Simon,

I am using the EF-S 17-85 IS USM as an allrounder and I am happy with it. If you don't want to loose the 22-28 range, recommended.

regards,
T.O.

what about a Canon or Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 ? The canon is more expensive,t he sigma is reasonable and both are optically excellent.

The reason we all recommend the 18-55 is because it's cheap cheap cheap and a good wide angle. But you've got an awesome wide angle so there's really no reason to get the 18-55.

it all depends what you're shooting. There's the Sigma 24-70/24-60 if you need some reach with lower light capabilities. There's the 17-85 if you want a longer reach, but I think that one's way overpriced.

You should also consider some of the hyperzooms, the 18-125s, 18-200s aren't too bad optically. Of course it's nowhere near the 10-22 or 24-70s, but it'll give yo uthe flexibility you want!

Oh, and the range between 22-28 is really useful, I use the 18-30 range on my kit lens a lot (my other zoom starts at 35mm)

What most people go for isn't necesarily the best option. The lens you have is very nice indeed so if you get something like the user/travel friendly but softish 28-135 IS then you may find yourself disappointed when comparing images between the two - only you know if that will matter. The Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 DG Macro is a great new lens with the price, speed and quality to bring a smile to your face. Excellent buy with good reviews. If you want something as good optically but lighter in weight then the Tamron 28-75 2.8 is a nice choice. I prefer my Sigma (I've had both) both optically and for build/weight and can't see me selling it for a long time.

I use my Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5 as my walkaround lens. Slightly wider than Canon's and wider appetures as well.

I can't imagine being without my 24-70L.

I use the 24-85 for just about everything...great lens and it's relatively light....don

I sad in a different post, I used the 24-70L, and it was so nice to use, but for the $, i dont think it was that great. After using the 70-200L, it made me want to get the tamron 24-70 or 28-70 f/2.8 whatever it is... to replace the 24-70L. With the money saved, I can go buy a 10-22 and i would be in a smokin good position as far as range and good optics.

I use my Canon 24-70 f2.8 for walking around. Might need a wider lens sometimes but its hard to beat for focus speed and sharpness (at least my copy).

Oh the 18-135 and 18-200 sound great as they will fill all the areas I probably will ever need, but will they be dark or have any other drawbacks.

Seems only made by Tamron and Sigma

Simon

Depends what your defintion about all around shooter lens. For me, I use that 70-200mm f/2.8L all the time. Can do portraits, sports, low light. Basically anything out doors with lots of space and a lot of stuff indoors i need. Only drawback is the weight and size if you want a con.

Consider sigma 18-125 for reasonably wide to telephoto. It has decent reviews as a walk around lens. Not the brightest/fastest lense but does quite a good job for the money it comes for.