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!

[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.