Best walkaround lens

[Dragon]

Hi, I am a beginner photographer that has caught the bug big time. I travel quite a bit internationally and I am looking for the best walkaround lens I can find.Although price is not a factor, I would like to fit the lens with my beginner status.


I have a Canon 400D, can anybody point me in the right direction (the reason I ask here is that I have seen the reviews on this site and I find them very informative and knowledgable)

[Colin]

standard opening questions...


what are you going to do with it?


Are you set on one lens versus multiple lenses?


What are your size constraints?

[Dragon]

I like taking pics of places we visit , like the inside of the Notre Dame Basillica (Paris)as well as the Parque de Ritiro (Madrid) so the use is quite varied. Also, we are going to South Africa to a game reserve so wild life pics as well


I would like to find one lens that would do all this but if there is not one. I would use two at a push. It is the changing lenses that frustrates me.


Not sure about size constrants I carry a standard Canon bag so the lens the size of a canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is good.

[cian3307]

The EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM will cover your wildlife needs in South Africa. Its not L series quality but is ideal for travel due to the light weight and compact size. You will need a wide angle zoom for interiors etc and because you are using a crop sensor body, it will need to be in the 'ultra-wide' category. As it will be a travel lens, again light weight/small size is desirable. Something like the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM would do. The IS will allow you to capture sharp pics indoors at low shutter speeds. 2 lenses covering 17 to 300mm should be sufficient for most of your needs!


However, if you really want the best in image quality, you should look at the L series range. Big bucks, but worth it. I curse the day I went to Kenya with a Vivitar 28-210mm zoom on my OM10. The trip of a lifetime and a load of crap quality slides to show for it. If the South Africe trip is a once in a lifetime holidayI would really recommend you buy top quality glass for it. One other thing - African dust gets everywhere if you are there during dry season. Don't change lenses in the field!

[Dragon]

Thanks for that, for the L-series, which would suggest?

[Dragon]

Will this lens fit on the Canon 400D ? EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

[cian3307]

For wildlife in South Africa one of the 4 available 70-200mm Lmodels should do for the larger animals. You'll only find 200mm a bit short if you are planning to shoot small birds etc. Or the 100-400L if you want the extra reach. Pick the one that best suits your budget, all will produce excellent results. I think you will need to check them all out in person at a local shop or by renting them to form your own opinion. Brians reviews and recommendations on this site are excellent and should be your first stop when making your decision. Have fun!

[cian3307]

Will this lens fit on the Canon 400D ? EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>



Yes. All EF and EF-S lenses will fit any EOS camera. However, EF-S lenses will only fit 1.6 crop sensor cameras. Thats a good travel lens that I accidentaly ommitted from my post above.

[Bill M.]

Dragon, Cian has some good suggestions. If you are looking for a one lens solution for the 400D then you should give the 18-200 IS a look. The image quality is not the same as L lenses but it does offer a large focal range. The 28-300L would be a nice solution if you had a full frame camera but on the 400D, 28mm works out to be almost 45mm a the wide-end (not so wide if you ask me) and will make it a little more difficult to capture interiors effectively.


If you can do it, I would defininately recommend a two lens solution. If money really were no object, then you might want to look at the 17-55 2.8, which is by all accounts, equal in IQ to L lenses and the 100-400L for all your wildlife shooting. The 70-200's are all excellent choices for IQ, but I find them a little short to shoot wildlife. I usually just carry two lenses the 24-105 and the 100-400 on a 5D II and I effectively cover 24-400. With the 17-55 and the 100-400 you would have a nice low-light capable lens (with IS) for the wider stuff and a lens that will essentially give you up to a 640mm 5.6 with very good IQ.


Just my two cents...

[Dallasphotog]

You might find the EF24-70mm f/2.8L USM to be quite useful. It covers a nice range for landscape and architecture photography and it won't stand out quite as much in a crowd as the white lenses. The EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM is also extremely versatile. I carry it quite a bit on vacation, but it will draw more attention.


Someone mentioned the EF100-400mm for wildlife. I don't own it, but it appears to be excellent for daylight shooting.

[asmodai]

I'm going to give you an atypical suggestion:


Get a really, really nice prime. And nothing else.





I started on a 20d with the 35 1.4L. I worked exclusively with that for nearly two years. Being forced to work with one framing really let me focus on composition as an artistic and not a technical pursuit. I found ways of shooting and seeing the world that were unusual to compensate for the very standard framing. My shots started to have a distinctive feel, no longer looking like 'the obvious choice' of how or what to shoot. In short, working this way really let me find my voice. I have a full kit now, but if I had the choice I would not give that kit to sophomore-in-college me.





As to which prime, I can directly attest my experience with the 35L. It winds up being nearly 50mm on your body (almost what your eye sees); so while it is perhaps the most generally usable prime, it is arguably a timid choice. You could also look at the 85 f/1.2L (amazing lens, probably my most used these days, perhaps a bit too tight on your body), the 24 f/1.4L (rented it and fell in love), or if you're feeling especially daring and experimental, the 14 f/2.8L. If I were to do it again I'd go with the 35 or the 24. But maybe going more extreme would have a more extreme effect.





So that's my advice. Or my story. I'm sure somebody will want to rebut me. Let me just say: I'm not saying any other choice is wrong. I'm just sharing what really, really helped me.

[Keith B]

asmodai


I like that advice, probably won't be popular but...


My first dSLR was a 40D w/28-135 and the first lens I bought was the 50 1.4 and the next was 24 1.4L. I think because of $$$ paid for the 24 I made myself shoot just about everything with it. I actually really liked the focal length that it turned out to be 38.4. I preferred it over the 50 (80mm) range. I think it does make you more aware of composition.


Now with my 5D, I crave the 35 1.4L to get back that focal range. I shoot with my 16-35 II most of the time, but I love locking on the 24 every once in a while. The extra 2 stops is nice too.

[cian3307]

Interesting idea, reminds me of the days when all I had was a 50mm 'standard' lens. Yes, it does improve your technique by forcing you to be more thoughtful about compostion etc., but (and a very big but), I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass[;)]


Apart from wildlife photography though, Asmodai's suggestion does have a lot of merit!

[Daniel Browning]

My favorite walkaround lens is the 500mm f/4. I find the 1200mm f/5.6 too heavy for prolonged hand-held use, and is a little too long for portraits anyway. The 500, though, also makes a great sports, wildlife, and astro lens. If you can be bothered to use a monopod, you might get away with the more unweildy 800mm f/5.6.


Seriously, though, my favorite walkaround is the 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2. But for 400D shooters I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

[Keith B]

Seriously, though, my favorite walkaround is the 24mm f/1.4 II on the 5D2. But for 400D shooters I would recommend the 17-55 f/2.8 IS.






There goes Daniel rubbing the 24 f/1.4 II in my face again.[8o|]

[asmodai]

I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass/emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>











You and I are very, very different people [:P]

[wusstigphoto]

The original reason I bought my 30D and EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 was for a 2 week trip to NY and Italy two summers ago. I spent oodles of time researching my choices and came up with a budget of ~$2K and at the time the 40D was not yet released. I couldn't wait for it so I pulled the trigger. Wish I had more time to hone my skills prior to the trip but I did come away with some really nice shots.


MY REASONING for going with such a wide lens with a 2.8 aperature was knowing I'd be going through a lot of Italian churches (such as the Vatican) where flash photography is not allowed (yeah right) and low light conditions was going to be the norm.On a 1.6x body, its the equivelant of a 28-85mm lens... quite fine for most walk-arounds.


I now have the 70-200 f/2.8 L so I'm set for another trip time and money permitting...


Here's a feel for some of the captures I got. My Flickr site ("http://www.flickr.com/photos/9612659@N08/sets/72157619307947836/) has the right crops/full view and lots of my favorite pics I've taken over the years (Japan pics taken with a Sony F707 btw)...





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3336/3598652129_ed4918ff63_b.jpg





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3599446846_59c56ff1f0_b.jpg





http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3626/3599462396_aa46014056_b.jpg

[Alan]

The 24-105 f/4 L. Good for landscapes, and it has a decent zoom. IS, to boot. Covers the "walk around" range.

[cian3307]

I wouldn't fancy trying to get a closeup shot of a cape buffalo or an elephant with a 24mm lens! I'd rather be a nice safe distance away hiding behind a 200mm or 300mm hunk of glass/emoticons/emotion-5.gif
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>











You and I are very, very different people /emoticons/emotion-4.gif



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>
Heh heh, if you're saying what I think you're saying, the big difference between us is life expectancy - mine will be considerably longer than yours!!!![:D][;)]

[crosbyharbison]

@Keith Wow, you and I started out with exactly the same gear, 40d, 28-135, 50/1.4. although I plan on diverging from out pattern by selling the 28-135 and buying a 16-35 and a 70-200 to fill the gap.

[Sactown900]

I like the idea of Prime Only lens. I have the original 6 year old 6MP Rebel(17mm-85mm) for home use, but I might put an 85 f1.8 on it.


I sold my Bronica ETRSi (with three Prime lens) and I really miss the huge negative (15 years of Weddings). At work (Gov. Video Production), for stills, I use a Canon 5D (28-135 and a 2.8 70-200). My work back up is a D60.


For home, I'd like a new T1i (15MP). If I upgrade, I am buying a Canon 85mm f1.8, as the lens to keep on the camera. I was going to get the 50D, but why spend more money, when I already print 36"x36" enlargements from my RAW images, from my 6 year old Canon Rebel?


I was going to buy a Hasselblad, with three prime lens, on Ebay, for the big 6x6 negative, but my custom lab, said, "don't bother, just buy good glass for your new 15MP digital camera.


Any thoughts, before I spend $799 on the T1i or $1,098 for the 50D?

[jusap]

If you want a one lens solution, try the 18-200 IS. It gives you the wide to tele reach but IQ is sacrificed.


You can also go for the 28-135. Not as wide and not as long but the range is good enough for walk around.


You want a fast lens? try the 17-55 2.8 or the 24-70 2.8L. Again, with wide to mid tele capability. IQ is better too.


If you shoot mostly on tele, try the 55-250 or go for the white 70-200 L lenses.


Or as the others suggest, primes! But I can't suggest what prime to get though.





It will all boil down to what your shooting preference will be.

[jasbsar]

Best lenses for walk around are: 24-105mm F4 L which some one has also said and if you want something bigger the EF 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM which you mentioned as well which would give you extra range.

[dmckinny]

Dragon,


My father-in-law just got back from a three week African safari trip. He is a Nikon shooter, but he has an 18-200 lens on his D80. I would have guessed he would have been disappointed with it (being too short) but he was very pleased. He said there was very little time for changing lenses so having a one-stop solution worked very well. He is currently chained to his computer processing about 3,500 RAW images[:)]


Good luck with your choice!


David

[Benjamin]

Honestly, I don't own the Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens; but I think that little lens rocks on every APS-C camera. I'm going to have it in within days before my next trip. I use either 16-35L II or 24-70L on 50D to walk around at this moment. I think both of my L lenses will retire from my walk around list after I got the Tamron.


People say the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is good, but personally I cannot justify the cost of it.


The Canon 17-85/4-5.6 IS has more reach but its 2-3 times slower than the Tamron, the distortion at 17mm is something to stop me too.


The new 18-200 IS is not a bad choice, but frankly speaking, comparing to Nikon's 18-200 it's lacking lots of things...


So yes, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is recommended.