General Purpose lens for $1,000 or less?

[Brendan7]

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.

[Cozen]

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.

[realityinabox]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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&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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Brendan7]

I second what Neuro said.