Best lens under $700 + poll

[Brendan7]

Hi all, I recently bought a 300 f/4 and am extremely satisfied.


I am now looking for a general purpose lens. I could drop it on a 16-35 or 85 f/1.2 but can't really justify the cost as I have other expenses and am fairly new to DSLR photography. So, an L lens is basically not on the list. The 70-200 f/4l usm is nice, but f/4 with no IS is not so great. (yes, I'm a fast lens snob, I admit it!!!)


Here are the choices I'm considering. (all under $700)


In your opinion, which lens are people most satisfied with?


Please vote in the poll!


thanks for all your help, very much appreciated []


brendan

[HiFiGuy1]

What else is in your kit? Based on your options as presented, and with no knowledge of your other gear except the 300mm, I would suggest the 15-85, especially if you are not planning on going full frame in the near future. That would give you good IQ, and a very useful walk-around range.


If you are into macro, though, the 100mm non-IS is a great lens, and is also good for portraits, etc. Very sharp. I'd pick that over the 85 just because it is more versatile. Of course, your 300 has a short enough MFD that you can kind of do macro work with it, so if that is your main goal, I'd choose something else.


I have the 28-135. It seems to be designed to work better on a FF body than my 1.6x crop.It does well enough, but I'll sell you mine if you want it. [] Very clean example, low mileage. I am trying to get to a 24-70 f/2.8 ASAP.


The 50 f/1.8 is so cheap, it shouldn't even be in this list, unless you want it AND another one on the list. As a matter of fact, that and my lens, new, are only about $400 or so total. Together.


The 50mm f/1.4 is very nice, but if all you had was that and the 300, I would think you'd miss some shots.


A great deal depends on what kind of shots you want to take. Personally, I would like to have nothing shorter than a 300 in my kit, if it were just for fun. In that case, none of your choices would work for me.


I love to shoot wildlife and flowers, etc. I have used my current 400mm Sigma to do macro work, and it's really neat. It also is a pretty decent length for birds and other critters.


For my hopefully soon startup photo "business", I will need shorter stuff, like the 24-70. Eventually a 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, as well. So that's a whole other ball of wax.

[clemmb]

What camera body do you have?


What other lenses do you have?

[tancanon58]

I used the 85 1.8 USM on 5D2 when I just switched from Nikon to Canon. It is a non L lens but it is faster than 85 1.2L.

[Brendan7]

A Canon 7D. I am not flush with $$$ so my only (!) lens I currently own is my 300 f/4L. I am mainly a wildlife photographer but need a good, cheap general purpose lens. thanks!

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Brendan,


Of the lenses you list, only the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 really qualifies as a 'general purpose lens' on a crop body. You may not find many 'satisfied' people since the lens is fairly new. It's one I strongly considered purchasing, since 15mm is decently wide angle on a 1.6x body (equivalent to 24mm FF), but I really wanted the constant and fast aperture of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, which is well above $700. I shoot indoors a lot (family) and prefer natural light. Outdoors in the daytime you'd be ok with the 15-85mm, I would think. I voted for the 15-85 as the best (only?) choice from the list as a 'general purpose lens'.


But, picking one lens on your list and one not on your list, you can actually get a pair of decent primes instead - something that is in line with you beinga self-declared 'fast lens snob'. At the current Amazon prices, EF 35mm f/2.0 plus the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM total up to a few pennies under $700. 35mm will approximate 'normal' on a 1.6x body and Bryan indicates the lens has decent IQ. The 85mm f/1.8 is a great head/shoulders portrait lens (I really like mine). The trade off is the flexibility of the zoom (and IS, too) vs. the faster apertures of the primes.


You might also consider the lens which theEF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 replaced - theEF-S 17-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. You could put the extra $250 towards that 580EX II...


Either way, good luck with your choice - let us know!


--John

[Daniel Browning]

Of the lenses you list, only the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 really qualifies as a 'general purpose lens' on a crop body.

I voted for it because of that reason. I like the suggestions about using a prime (or two). I second the recommendation for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. The 15-85 has more zoom range, but a fast f-number is very useful. It's my favorite lens on a crop body and I've kept it long after I upgraded to full frame (I think two bodies are very worthwhile).

[clemmb]

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L is $700 now at B&H. For under $700 I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II.


The Tamron is f2.8. If you want faster then I would say the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM


Mark

[Sean Setters]

For under $700 I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II.

I don't own that lens, but from what I've read, it's comparable to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, just without image stabilization. I've found that on a crop body, the Canon 17-55 isthe perfect general purpose lens. I, too, suggest givingthe Tamrona look before you make your final decision...

[liam821]

For under $700 I would recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II.

I don't own that lens, but from what I've read, it's comparable to the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, just without image stabilization. I've found that on a crop body, the Canon 17-55 isthe perfect general purpose lens. I, too, suggest givingthe Tamrona look before you make your final decision...

I own the Tamron17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di IIand its a really really good lens -it's the way to go in your price range. You can pick one up used (i paid $308 for mine used on ebay almost in new condition) for under $400 (or new for $450), constant f/2.8, an its just as sharp as the $1000 canon 17-55. Its really the way to go and a great general purpose lens on a 1.6 chop camera. For the money you just cannot go wrong.


The things i dont like about it is its a bit loud (noisy) focusing, and its not as fast focusing as some of the nicer USM Canon lenses but it does ok. Also it doesn't have IS but its such a fast lens you don't really need it IMO.


They do have a VC (Image Stabilization) version for around $650 but i don't think its worth the money and i haven't read enough reviews to know if its any good or not.


Tamron 17-50 @ f/2.8 ISO800 on a Canon xti


http://liam821.com/pix/other/IMG_8511.jpg <-- high quality version