Help a novice choose a lens

"I'm looking for that "can do it all" lens that I won't have to take off the camera except for rare occasions."

The 24-105 is about as good as you can do and retain great quality. (My nephew has a Canon 18-200 that never leaves his camera and gets wonderful family photos for 4X6 prints and posting on the internet.) You are right about the need of a flash. No problem since you already have one. The 24-105 is my general purpose lens and shortest/widest that I own. I have never had a problem with the 24mm in my home, even in the smallest rooms. The zoom range provided by 24-105mm will be nice when your daughter starts playing outside.

I use a 70-200 for outside shots of toddlers/small children. The zoom range allows them space to do their thing without becoming camera shy. Photographing children is very much like photographing a sporting event, zoom with good auto focusing capability is extremely useful.

I agonized for at least a month over the purchase of a general purpose lens to go with my 50D and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. The 17-55mm, 24-70mm and 24-105mm were the options. I love my 24-105mm - no problem with it being 24mm or f/4 and never any regrets.

Thanks all for the replies.

mark2009 wrote in post #11462515
Hi,
Another option is the Tamron 17-50, non-VC, very sharp and half the price of the canon.

I would really go out and buy the canon 18-55(is) to start, people are always selling them from there kits for around $100-120

I forgot about the 17-50 Tamron. I really like the looks of it and have seen some video demonstrating the autofocus. I know it's not going to compare to the "L" lenses, but seemed fast enough. Maybe it's because I'm looking at it through noob goggles? Why do you suggest the non-VC version? Seems like the VC would be a nice feature to have? Or is it just because the VC version is more expensive and won't give me much better results for the cost of having the VC?

I did think about the 18-55 too, but I really don't want to get six months down the road and say "dang, I wish I had gone with...." or similar.

SE Smith Jr wrote in post #11462536
I guess I'll be the one to throw a curveball

Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM

All you have to do is browse through that thread to see why. AND it's < $1000.

I'll browse through and read up on it though. I think 135 wouldn't be anywhere near wide enough for me. May change my mind after reading reviews; never know.

gasrocks wrote in post #11462731
Tamron 17-50/2.8.

Thanks. As I said above, I forgot about this lens. I'm considering it as well. Seems it does get better reviews than the 28-75, although I think I do like the 28-75 focal range better. What's your experience with it? VC or non-VC version?

kf095 wrote in post #11462779
Most tricky situation would be if you have child running toward or from you.
Focusing distance would change quickly. I tested my Tammi on situation very similar to this with my Tli last weekend.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

If I remember it correct most of complains about Tammi to be slow for focusing were for very low light. Which is not something unusual for any lens and camera. How lens and camera supposed to focus if no light is present? It is not night vision targeting device actually.

It is not so big deal to capture pictures of running kids if you are using correct settings for it. Even Rebel kit lens would do it at easy.
Here is my kid running fast towards to me, so focusing distance is changing fast as well.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

If you need "do it all, seat on camera all time" lens for Tli and have good IQ first choice for your budget would be Canon 15-85 since you have flash already. Perfect IQ, range, USM and IS.
If you really have FF in your mind in future and don't mind f4 and 24(40 on Tli) - 24-105L is lovely lens I would buy if I have your money

Thanks for all of the insight and examples. Looks like the 28-75 takes some nice shots on your T1i. I looked into the 15-85 since your recommendation. It's now on my list as well. Looks like it takes some very nice shots (via Flickr). Good focal range too for my needs.

I really like the 24-105 but am not sold on it, yet. I could spend up to $1k, but that doesn't mean I WANT too. I will if it gets me the best for what I'm looking for and something that will least me years to come and not have me searching for my next lens in a couple months (although there may be no avoiding that no matter what I do).

sangjiny wrote in post #11463073
Got $1K to spend?

I would go like this.

- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Canon 85mm f/1.8

That should fall somewhere around $1K...
-

Thanks! Definitely looking at the 17-50. I've asked others above, but I'll get your take too, VC or non-VC? Why?

Also, seems that the Sigma 30 wouldn't be needed? I know it's a wider aperture, but that focal range is covered by the Tamron in your list. Does the 1.4 make that much of a difference over the 2.8?

Craign wrote in post #11464061
"I'm looking for that "can do it all" lens that I won't have to take off the camera except for rare occasions."

The 24-105 is about as good as you can do and retain great quality. (My nephew has a Canon 18-200 that never leaves his camera and gets wonderful family photos for 4X6 prints and posting on the internet.) You are right about the need of a flash. No problem since you already have one. The 24-105 is my general purpose lens and shortest/widest that I own. I have never had a problem with the 24mm in my home, even in the smallest rooms. The zoom range provided by 24-105mm will be nice when your daughter starts playing outside.

I use a 70-200 for outside shots of toddlers/small children. The zoom range allows them space to do their thing without becoming camera shy. Photographing children is very much like photographing a sporting event, zoom with good auto focusing capability is extremely useful.

I agonized for at least a month over the purchase of a general purpose lens to go with my 50D and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS. The 17-55mm, 24-70mm and 24-105mm were the options. I love my 24-105mm - no problem with it being 24mm or f/4 and never any regrets.

Thank you. You basically summed up why the 24-105 has been my front runner. I don't think it will work for me in all situations, but at this point I think it will work in the most situations compared to the others I've chosen. I think 24 will be wide enough, although I do realize on my crop body it won't be 24 equivalent. I don't think the f/4 will be an issue either. There's a whole thread here that I saw earlier with people talking about how the 17-55/2.8 isn't great in low light situations and a flash is needed. Even at 2.8 it won't be great in low light without flash, so if I'm going to have to use a flash anyway in doors, I'd rather have the focal range of the 24-105.

BTW: Where are you in KY?

BTW: Where are you in KY?
Calhoun. Near Owensboro.

You are right. A lens with f/2.8 will still need flash assistance. I tested with the 70-200 f2.8 on my 50D and my old 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm f/1.7 lens to determine that I was going to need a flash unless I used very high ISO. At that point the usefulness of the longer zoom range of the 24-105 became the deciding factor. There have been times I wished it was longer but have not needed anything wider or faster. Someday I will need a very fast lens when flash is not permitted or appropriate. I will deal with that problem when it comes.

Craign wrote in post #11464812
BTW: Where are you in KY?
Calhoun. Near Owensboro.

You are right. A lens with f/2.8 will still need flash assistance. I tested with the 70-200 f2.8 on my 50D and my old 35mm SLR camera with a 50mm f/1.7 lens to determine that I was going to need a flash unless I used very high ISO. At that point the usefulness of the longer zoom range of the 24-105 became the deciding factor. There have been times I wished it was longer but have not needed anything wider or faster. Someday I will need a very fast lens when flash is not permitted or appropriate. I will deal with that problem when it comes.

Cool. I'm in Lexington.

Thanks again for all of your insight on my question. There's just so many options out there, it's hard to decide! Even harder for a novice like myself because all I shoot at this point is my daughter for the most part, but who knows what I may get into shooting down the road. But, there's never going to be a perfect lens for every single situation. Always some give and take.

Since posting earlier, I've actually discovered the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Previously I had been told that Tamron was better than Sigma, but I have to say, this Sigma lens looks awesome. A little more expensive but not near as much as the Canon 17-55 or 24-105. Do you have any experience with it?

Consider the Tamron 18-270. Here

deronsizemore wrote in post #11466667
Cool. I'm in Lexington.

Thanks again for all of your insight on my question. There's just so many options out there, it's hard to decide! Even harder for a novice like myself because all I shoot at this point is my daughter for the most part, but who knows what I may get into shooting down the road. But, there's never going to be a perfect lens for every single situation. Always some give and take.

Since posting earlier, I've actually discovered the Sigma 17-50/2.8. Previously I had been told that Tamron was better than Sigma, but I have to say, this Sigma lens looks awesome. A little more expensive but not near as much as the Canon 17-55 or 24-105. Do you have any experience with it?

I am 100% Canon. Can't help you on any third party.

BTW: I go to UK basketball and football games, also, Keeneland at every opportunity.

About the AF: I didn't try a Tamron, but I have the SIGMA 18-200 and its focus should be on the lower end. Though, it is way better than the AF system of the Nifty Fifty. So how do you like the AF of your Nifty?
This lens, the SIGMA 18-200 is very good. But the 1K range can get you better glass.
I'd get the 24-105 if I had 1K.
I know you are seeking a do-it-all lens, but I must say DSLR world is all about changing lenses, so consider spending the 1K on more than one lens to cover more range: e.g. Tokina 11-16 + Tamron 17-50 or may be Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f4L. You will miss less shots opportunities that way.
Merry Christmas and happy purchase

It's a bit out of your budget range, but there's always the Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. If I really wanted to have only 1 lens, I would consider it.

I have both, the 17-55 and the 24-105. The advantage of the 24-105 for portraits is that you can step back a bit and not make the subject feel like they have a camera shoved in their face. As for it not doing well indoors because it's "only F4", remember that it's a constant F4 and works well with natural light in my experience. Both will give very sharp results. I wouldn't part with either one of them.

Craign wrote in post #11466721
I am 100% Canon. Can't help you on any third party.

BTW: I go to UK basketball and football games, also, Keeneland at every opportunity.

That's cool. Being an Ohio State fan, I don't go to many UK games.

bishoy wrote in post #11466863
About the AF: I didn't try a Tamron, but I have the SIGMA 18-200 and its focus should be on the lower end. Though, it is way better than the AF system of the Nifty Fifty. So how do you like the AF of your Nifty?
This lens, the SIGMA 18-200 is very good. But the 1K range can get you better glass.
I'd get the 24-105 if I had 1K.
I know you are seeking a do-it-all lens, but I must say DSLR world is all about changing lenses, so consider spending the 1K on more than one lens to cover more range: e.g. Tokina 11-16 + Tamron 17-50 or may be Tamron 17-50 and 70-200 f4L. You will miss less shots opportunities that way.
Merry Christmas and happy purchase

Thanks for the info! Yeah, I'm realizing that no matter what I do, there's always going to be a shortcoming of whatever lens I shoot. One lens can't do it all. I supposed the AF on my 50 is OK, but I have not used anything to compare it against. I'm sure it's extremely slow compared to some of the high end lenses.

Mk1Racer wrote in post #11467990
It's a bit out of your budget range, but there's always the Canon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS. If I really wanted to have only 1 lens, I would consider it.

Thank you. I'll take a look!

James P wrote in post #11468136
I have both, the 17-55 and the 24-105. The advantage of the 24-105 for portraits is that you can step back a bit and not make the subject feel like they have a camera shoved in their face. As for it not doing well indoors because it's "only F4", remember that it's a constant F4 and works well with natural light in my experience. Both will give very sharp results. I wouldn't part with either one of them.

Thanks for the info! This is exactly why the 24-105 was my front runner. I really want that lens but the more I look at the price tag, the better the Sigma 17-55 looks to me, even though I wouldn't have the focal range of the 24-105. For someone that doesn't do this professionally, $1k is scary even if I have the budget for it.

sangjiny wrote in post #11463073
Got $1K to spend?

I would go like this.

- Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
- Sigma 30mm f/1.4
- Canon 85mm f/1.8

That should fall somewhere around $1K...
-

+1.

pilotdude22 wrote in post #11466712
Consider the Tamron 18-270. Here

From one novice to another, if you are truly looking for a "can do it all" lens this would also be my suggestion as well, but for do it all.. I know many true photographers are not supportive of this lens as it has too much range for superior snaps, however it fills the void. It's also getting good reviews from many users.

Also shopped for an all in one, after taking my 18-55 and 55-250 on a recent vacation, realized how much I switched back and forth. I shopped the Canon 18-200 and the Tamron 18-270 - both about the same price. Surprisingly, got a vote for the Tamron over the Canon from my local photo shop. Surprised, I checked out another photo shop, same answer. More research, more indecision. Yes, I understand I am giving up some quality for convenience. However, keeping the 18-55, 55-250 and adding a 50 to my arsenal, I can grab the lens for specific shots when needed.

Not sure how much this helps, but good luck. Did I mention, a new 18-270 was shipping from Adorama? Set to arrive before Christmas!

24-105 - you won't regret it!!!

James P wrote in post #11468136
I have both, the 17-55 and the 24-105. The advantage of the 24-105 for portraits is that you can step back a bit and not make the subject feel like they have a camera shoved in their face. As for it not doing well indoors because it's "only F4", remember that it's a constant F4 and works well with natural light in my experience. Both will give very sharp results. I wouldn't part with either one of them.

Well said James.
Deron.
Like James, I have both the Canon 17-55 and the 24-105 L. No doubt, my 24-105 is on my 7D more than the 17-55 for the reasons that James and yourself have said. I like the longer reach it provides. "L" glass and build are evident.
Do I still use my 17-55? Absolutely. Love it and won't get rid of it.
Do I use my 24-105 more than the 17-55? Absolutely.
Two different tools for two different jobs.

Thanks everyone for all of the valuable information. This is definitely one tough decision.

Nick5 wrote in post #11473379
Well said James.
Deron.
Like James, I have both the Canon 17-55 and the 24-105 L. No doubt, my 24-105 is on my 7D more than the 17-55 for the reasons that James and yourself have said. I like the longer reach it provides. "L" glass and build are evident.
Do I still use my 17-55? Absolutely. Love it and won't get rid of it.
Do I use my 24-105 more than the 17-55? Absolutely.
Two different tools for two different jobs.

Thanks. Love hearing from someone who has both of the lenses that I'm considering. I've been going back and forth in my mind between the Sigma 17-50, Canon 17-55 and Canon 24-105. The photos I've seen from all three lenses are great with many from the Sigma looking the best; just very sharp. The Sigma is also $400ish cheaper than the other two and from what I've read, is actually built more solid than the Canon 17-55. It's only downside is full time manual focus which it doesn't have.

I really, REALLY love the length the 24-105 provides, but there's just something about that f/4 that keeps jumping out at me saying "I'm not fast enough," there I realize that even at f/2.8 indoors in low light, I'll likely need a flash.

I realize that the whole idea of a dslr is to have different lenses for different purposes, but I guess my whole thing is that this will likely be my last lens purchase for a while given the cost of the ones I'm looking at. So I feel a bit of pressure to get the perfect lens; although there is no perfect lens for every situation.

What I really need to do is get my hands on the lenses, either by going to my local shop or by renting them for a couple days. Actually holding the lens and seeing the images I'm getting from them will make the decision much easier, I think (hope). I'm really close to going with the 24-105 simply because I feel like I can use it in more situations than the other two and I don't have to be right up on what I'm shooting, but I'm not 100% yet.