General Purpose lens for $1,000 or less?

[realityinabox]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[Brendan7]

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.

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

[Sean Setters]

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.

[Jon Ruyle]

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

[ddt0725]

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

[nimblybimbly85]

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.

[jake66]

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!

[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.


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?

[Brendan7]

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.