General Purpose lens for $1,000 or less?

I currently have a Rebel XT, Speedlite 580exII, Sigma 28-70 f/2.8, and a Canon 50mm f/1.8.


I love my XT, but my Sigma lens is driving me crazy. I'm not sure if I've gotten a sharp shot out of it in the 3 years I've owned it, and now that I'm getting more serious (and have a bit more spending money), I'd love to upgrade it.


I shoot mostly landscapes and portraits, thinking about trying to do some senior photo shoots for some extra cash this summer.


I tend to shoot most of my shots of people at the wider end. Some of my favorite shots are full or half body portrats at 40mm (on a 1.6x) or wider. A quick glance through my adobe bridge showed that I rarely hit the 70mm mark on my Sigma.


With that said, the other day I did use my wife's 70-200mm kit Nikon lens for some portraits that turned out nicely.


I love the framing that wider lens give, but I love the bokeh that longs lens give. Is there any way to combine the best of both worlds?


Edit: I'm looking at both the 17-55 EF-S and the 15-85 EF-S. Any opinions on the difference? The extra length and lower price is appetizing on the 15-88, but the 2.8 also looks nice for the 17-55.

I'd recommend theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens- it's really the ideal 'general purpose' zoom for 1.6x crop cameras. That's especially true since you prefer the wider end of your Sigma. The difference between 24mm and 17mm on a crop body is very substantial - it will really make a difference for your landscape shots. The f/2.8 aperture will also produce some nice OOF blur and the quality of the bokeh (which I think you mean instead of 'borak').


55mm on a 1.6x crop is equivalent to 85mm on full frame - 85mm is the 'classic' portrait length. For something tighter, a great head/shoulders portrait lens on a crop body is theEF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens- that plus the 17-55mm would exceed your budget, though. But for starters, the 17-55mm will be a great, versatile lens. I've got quite a few lenses, including several L lenses, but the 17-55mm is the one that's on my 7D most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

but my Sigma lens is driving me crazy

---

I hate a lot of Sigma lenses. When I pay for a discount lens, I'm looking for a cheaper alternative that still retains some quality. Sigma lets this fall by the wayside. Many of their lenses don't AF correctly, come with foreign objects, etc. I am firmly of the opinion that If I'm paying $1k for a lens it better work properly and that's where many Sigma lenses fail. Anyway, now that I've ranted about Sigma I'll try to answer your question [8-|]


Since you like wide portraits, here are some options:


17-55 f/2.8L IS USM. This is considered by many to be the best general purpose lens for 1.6 bodies. It's sharp, fast, has IS, is wide, and isn't too big. About $1000.


16-35 f/2.8L USM. You lose IS and telephoto reach but this is a better option if you plan on going fullframe in the future. $1500


If you like the focal length of the Sigma (but hate the lens) the Canon 24-70L is the lens for you.


Most people would probably recommend the 17-55. Try renting the lenses from lensrentals.com and decide which you like better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

love the framing that wider lens give, but I love the borak that longs lens give. Is there any way to combine the best of both worlds?

---

Not really. Tight portraits and wide portraits require two lenses IMO. A good strategy would be to first get a general purpose zoom like the ones above and then a 135 f/2 prime that'll give you the long portrait reach at 1/2 the cost of the 70-200 f/2.8 AND it'd be twice as fast.


Good Luck!


brendan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

With that said, the other day I did use my wife's 70-200mm kit Nikon lens for some portraits that turned out nicely.


I love the framing that wider lens give, but I love the borak that longs lens give. Is there any way to combine the best of both worlds?
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

If you want relatively good image quality, no. For a general purpose lens on a crop-sensor camera within your budget, I'd strongly suggest the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. That particular lens is generally regarded as producing images comparable to "L" glass. I own six lenses--three zooms and three primes. Out of all those lenses, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS stays on my primary camera three-times more than any other. Overall, it's simply the best general-purpose lens (for a crop-sensor body) that produces superb images.


If you want to see images I've taken with the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, click here.


Later, if you find you still want a longer focal length, take a good look at the 70-200mm f/4 L--it's one of the best bang-for-buck zooms that money can buy.

One more vote for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Seems like the obvious choice given your requirements.

Another vote for the 17-55mm!! BTW - Just a couple days ago, someone on this site just posted one for sale in mint condition...you may be able to save some $!

Denise

Get the 15-85mm it provides great image quality, fairly inexpensive, and the extra reach is very useful.





The 17-55 is over your budget; but if you can afford it, than get it.

I had the same decision to make as you.


I got the 17-55two daysago for my Xsihaving taken the advice of the people here and It's every bit as good as they say. Just amazing!

The only thing I'm worried about with the 17-55 is that I'd miss the extra reach. While I don't go up to 70 often, I do enjoy the option.


This is why I'm leaning towards the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. According to the review, the IQ is comparable to the 17-55, but you get the extra reach. Any thoughts on the two lenses?

The 15-85 has a lot of distortion and vignetting and is four times as slow as the 17-55. The 17-55 is a far superior lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

This is why I'm leaning towards the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. According to the review, the IQ is comparable to the 17-55, but you get the extra reach. Any thoughts on the two lenses?

---

Don't get the 15-85mm, because:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

I shoot mostly landscapes and portraits, thinking about trying to do some senior photo shoots

---

Once you get above 60mm on the 15-85mm lens, you have an f/5.6 lens. For portraits, the desirable out-of-focus blur you want will, for lack of a better word, suck at f/5.6. You'll need f/2.8 (or less, which is why I mentioned the 85mm f/1.8!) to effectively isolate your subject from your background at these focal lengths.

John is right. For portraits, you don't want a slow lens.


A "general purpose lens" is about compromises. You have to give up something. Given that you shoot landscapes and portraits an rarely use the long end of the lens you have, the superior IQ and speed of the 17-55 will matter more than the reach.


No, the 17-55 isn't an ideal portrait lens (for that, you want a fast prime or longer zoom). But IMO it will do better than the 15-85.

I will add another vote for the 17-55. [Y][Y]


I have had it for almost a year and a half and the images are on par
with my 70-200 IS L. It is the lens most often mounter on my 50D, and it
never lets me down. Of my lenses, I feel that my 17-55 gives me the most
bang-for-the-buck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

The only thing I'm worried about with the 17-55 is that I'd miss the extra reach. While I don't go up to 70 often, I do enjoy the option.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

In your original post you stated:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

my Sigma lens is driving me crazy. I'm not sure if I've gotten a sharp
shot out of it in the 3 years I've owned it
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I would suggest that if you seldom use 70, and your overall image quality is poor, you will have better crops from the 17-55 than your raw images currently are from the Sigma. What you may miss the most is the 2.8 aperture. After the widest settings (15-17) the 15-85 goes to f/4 and by 38mm it is at f/5. That is a lot less light coming in than your are used to. If you are not shooting with a flash or a lot of ambient light, especially action, this should be a major consideration for you.


Chris



<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

I love the framing that wider lens give, but I love the bokeh that longs lens give. Is there any way to combine the best of both worlds?

---

Actually yes, you need a fast prime. But it also help big time to have a full-frame camera, you get 30% more background blur than 1.6. But, and this is a big but. If you use a longer lens to maintain the same working distance then you will get MUCH more background blur.


John.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Once you get above 60mm on the 15-85mm lens, you have an f/5.6 lens. For portraits, the desirable out-of-focus blur you want will, for lack of a better word, suck at f/5.6. You'll need f/2.8 (or less, which is why I mentioned the 85mm f/1.8!) to effectively isolate your subject from your background at these focal lengths.

---

Agree 100%.


If it's bokeh you want, you need a longer lens. The 15-85 is an outdoor lens and the 17-55 an indoor lens (doesn't mean it's bad outdoors); and this makes the 17-55 a more valuable lens.


It also seems you have conflicting requirements: wide angle and great bokeh. Most likely you'd need primes or a longer lens for that, but from what I've seen the 17-55 is the way to go.

from what I've heard the canon 17-55 2.8IS is a great all purpose lens. But just to throw the option out there, you can try the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and Canon 85 1.8 combo. Both together will cost you less than $1000 and it will give you a general purpose lens that can do landscapes and a fast indoor portrait lens with good bokeh.

Any thoughts on the 17-55 vs. the 24-105 f/4.0 IS L?


the 24-105 is a stop slower, but it has more on the long end. I'm still worried that 55 will just feel too short, that'd be the longest focus length I'd have.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by realityinabox

Any thoughts on the 17-55 vs. the 24-105 f/4.0 IS L?

---

Do you need f/2.8 for bokeh, or dim light? What focal-length ranges are you expecting to use? Where you place you focal-range break depends on your style, and which lengths you tend to use at the same time. If you tend to shoot near 50mm, the 24-105mm will reduce lens changes. If you tend to shoot wide to mid, the 17-55mm will reduce lens changes.


I personally went with the 24-105mm. My wife and I were used to a Sonysuper-zoomP&amp;Sequivalentto 36-432, and were finding the kit lens 55mm felt really, really short to us. Occasionally it would be nice to have f/2.8, but it's also nice to have reach.


You may want to supplement the 24-105mm with a 10-22mm for wide, or stick with the kit lens if you only use wide on rare occasions, and don't need shallow DOF, such as landscapes.


You may want to supplement the 17-55mm with a 70-200mm for tele.

It all depends on what you want to use the lens for. You mentioned portraits and landscapes - the 24-105mm f/4L won't be ideal for either of those (aperture too narrow for good OOF blur in portraits, not wide enough for landscapes).


For the same subject framing, you'll get a thinner DoF (and thus more OOF blur) at 55mm f/2.8 than at 105mm f/4. All that means is that for portraits with the 17-55mm, you'll need to move in closer - do that, and the quality will be better than you'd get from further away with the 24-105mm.


Both the EF 24-105mm f/4L and the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 are excellent 'general purpose' zoom lenses. For the uses you stated, I think you'll get more from the 17-55mm, but yes, you will sometimes miss the longer end. In my opinion, you're better off picking the best lens for the type of shooting you plan to do, then add other lenses later, as opposed to compromising at every step (the EF-S 15-85mm is a good example of a bad compromise for your needs).


Case in point, I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 and I'm considering buying the 24-105mm f/4L. Why? As an outdoor 'walkaround' lens - it will give me a weather-sealed combo with my 7D, and outdoors I'll be ok with f/4 for 'memory' shots of my toddler. Keep in mind - I'm not choosing the 24-105mm instead of the 17-55mm, but in addition to it, and they'll serve different purposes. Indoors, I'll reach for the 17-55mm for general use (24mm not wide enough, f/4 too slow). For sweeping landscapes, the EF-S 10-22mm. For indoor portraits, it would most likely be the 85mm f/1.8, outdoors that lens or the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II (but the 17-55mm would work there, too). Ok, I have a lot of lenses. But if someone forced me to give them all up except one, the EF-S 17-55mm would be the one I'd keep.


Having said that, for your purposes and if you don't have an aversion to 3rd party lenses, the suggestion above of the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 plus the EF 85mm f/1.8 is something to consider. I'd still recommend starting with the EF-S 17-55mm then saving for the 85mm f/1.8, but that pair of lenses is at least a 'good' compromise.

I second what Neuro said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bburns223

Tight portraits and wide portraits require two lenses IMO. A good strategy would be to first get a general purpose zoom like the ones above and then a 135 f/2 prime that'll give you the long portrait reach at 1/2 the cost of the 70-200 f/2.8 AND it'd be twice as fast.


Good Luck!


brendan

---

I second what Brendan said on this -- I get away with it with a 24-70 f/2.8 on a 1D Mark III body (1.3 crop), but it's not quite as wide as I'd like for wide portraits and not quite as long as I'd like for tight portraits. The 135 f/2 prime gives me plenty of background blur on my 40D (1.6 crop) but it's a little long on that body, and frankly, a little difficult to hand-hold without IS. I seem to have better luck hand-holding it on the 1DIII.