Which lens to get?!?

I'm currently torn between a few lenses. I'm generally looking for a zoom "all

around lens". With a wide angle end, and a portrait end. Not lookin for much

beyond that.

<br><br>

Heres a few possibilities-

<br>

<br>

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC <br>

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens<br>

Canon EF 28-105 F3.5-4.5

<br><br>

Outa those which would you guys reccomend?...also, any others you think that

would work for what I'm looking for?

<br><br>

Thanks!

All depends really on which camera body you're using and if you plan to change that body any time in the future.

Another to consider: Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM

Oh right, I have the XTi right now. I dont plan on upgrading for a long while. I just got this. I'd love an L lens, but being a college student that is out of my $$ range.

 

So trying to keep it best value for the money type thing.

Assuming you've got the kit lens, why not add the <a href="http://www.photographybay.com/2006/12/13/a-must-have-lens-for-canon-users/">EF 50 f/1.8 II</a> for your "portait" range, given that none of your possibilities have a shallow DOF at 50mm. It's quite the amazing lens for $70.

<p>

Cheers!

I actually got body only and bought that 50mm you just mentioned. Looking for a zoom now..

 

Thanks

Since you mention portraits, I would agree with Eric R. Then, run over to strobist and get some lights.

 

Other third-party options would be a 18-50/2.8 zoom, that would allow low-light, shallow DOF and more accurate AF. You could also get an all-in-one 18-200 zoom plus the 50/1.8, if your budget allows, yielding a very flexible daylight lens plus a low-light and portrait lens.

Johannes-

 

Are you reffering to the sigma or tamron when you mentioned the 18-200 zoom?

Hard to recommend the 28-105 for an XTi, since it would result in a wide field of view equivalent to 45mm (full frame), which is not very wide.

 

If it were my money, and I was willing to spend $400, I would get the Tamron 17-50 F2.8

I have the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM lens, bought it as part of a 30D kit. Maybe I'm picky, but I really hate it. In low light its way too slow. I have to raise the ISO to 1600 sometimes. Its not sharp at all. And the frustrating part is at 85mm the aperture turns to f5.6. I am a beginner in the SLR world and I had no idea about the speed aperture or anything else...but believe me it makes a huge difference. Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 will frustate you to the max. As soon as you get the feel for the camera and different light situations you'll understand thats its better to shoot with a liitle POS camera than to get a cheaper version of lens in this zoom category. By the way Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 also has quite a barrel distorsion and vignetting problem. IS does not save you when you can't raise the shutter speed above 1/15. And trust me in dim light at 85mm f5.6 your only choice is to up the ISO, and pictures come out like crap. Save some money and go for the Expensive, that's my opinion.

sell some of your books( which I know are expensive) and get a ef-s 17-55 f2.8 is, its all you'll ever need and will have no regret.

And with the is and fast 2.8 aperture you get a virtual f1.0!

Yep, Canon's EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS is great, but it's twice the price of others in it's class. Unless you have lots of books you can sell, you might have to settle for the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It lacks IS and FTM. but it is a good lens. I would prefer the Tamron to the Canon 17-85, since it is sharper, and faster. The Canon's addition of IS makes up for some of it's deficiencies, but not all of them, and it costs too much for what it is.

 

The Sigma's in this category all have rather poor reputations for AF consistency. You might get a good one, but chances are you won't. -- Just my opinionated opinion.

 

The Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is a nice lens for a film camera, but is frustrating to use on an XTi. It just has no wide end at all. 28mm will not cut it on a small frame camera. If you are determined to get something like this, get the Canon 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 instead. 24mm is at least close to wide enough for a general purpose lens, and image/build/focus quality are all pretty much the same as the 28-105.

Re the 18-200: The Sigma seems to get better press, but the new Tamron (18-250) also looks good; Bob Atkins compares it favourably to the Canon 17-85 (at the same aperture, where the FLs overlap). I have used neither of the two.

The 17-85 IS is probably your best bet for the money / quality / IS / reach, and is essentially the crop version of the 28-135 IS. BUT, if you want a GP zoom with a wide end I would siggst you check out the 18-55 kit plastic. I know it's not the absolute best out there but if you want a zoomable wide option, it can be had for peanuts (less than the 50mm f1.8 actually) on that well known auction site.

 

All the best

 

Damian

I ditto the comment `hard to recommend the 28 to 105 . . . there will be no wide end.

 

As you already have the 50mm F1.8, and this could be used as your portrait lens have you considered the EF 20 to 35 F3.5 to f4.5 USM?

 

Obviously, not as wide as the 17 to 85 but a bit faster, smaller and lighter and less expensive.

 

And there is merit too, IMO, [value for money] in looking at the 18 to 55 kit lens as a daylight walk around (F7 to F11) and putting the money saved to a faster prime say 85mm F1.8 or the 100mmF2.

 

I know the kit lens gets a bagging by some but it performs adequately at the apertures indicated above and is really inexpensive.

 

WW

I use the 17-85 pretty much as my all-around lens, and contrary to some opinions it works pretty well. It may not be the fastest out there, and yes there is some distortion at the wide range (as many wides have), however the vignetting is unoticable in my opinion. If you are after the best image quality obviously there are better lenses out there. However, for someone with a budget wanting a pretty good range, it works great. I shoot on a 20 and 30D so it extends those lengths a bit. It is a little soft at certain apertures, I will say that. However, I still use it 90% of the time, my pictures turn out well, and it covers most of my needs. Now, given those things, I would like a faster lens at times and the frustration of 5.6 on the long end comes about. However, there are not many options for a zoom that gives great lengths on a crop body. The 24-105/4 would be nice, but on a crop...

 

My piece of advice is this. Think about the kinds of pictures you want to take, what focal lengths will get you those pictures on a crop, then buy the best lens you can in that category. One thing I have learned through my photography experience is that you may not "need" a higher quality lens now but you will want and need one later as you develop your ability. Yes it may seem like a lot of money, but it is less in the long run than replacing a lens with one you should have bought in the first place. Unfortunately having a camera with a crop ratio makes that task more difficult. I hear the 17-55/2.8 is pretty good, L quality, near L price, without L red ring. However, it has a low top end and the 50/1.8 covers that, and faster.

 

So, in all that, it might be worth your while to stretch your budget a bit and go for something that will last you longer in terms of quality. My two cents.

I was going to recommend two lenses, one was the already mentioned 24-85. The other is the not-that-often talked about 20-35 f/3.5-4.5.

 

This lens is in the same league as the 24-85 and the 28-105; this means is from a time when Canon still built good quality kit zooms. For photographers in a budget, it is great value. And for portraits you can always use the 50 you already have.

 

For a bit more, you can try and find a used 20-35L, or 17-35L, both great lenses.