A general purpose / wife friendly / travel lens kit for 40D

Background: I recently made the long awaited move to digital with the acquisition of a 40D and Tokina

12-24 f/4. My other kit includes a nice set of Canon primes - 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 and 200

f/2.8.

 

At home, I work with the primes (and now the 12-24) just fine, but when my wife and I travel, changing

lenses is going to become a real distraction as she has decided we should also have a camcorder in the

kit. The extra weight will an issue as well as I just know who will end up carrying everything. As you can

see, I prefer light-weight fast sharp lenses.

 

On a recent round-the-world trip, I took the 24 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 but purchased the 35 f/2 (at B&H)

along the way. The 35 f/2 then stayed on the film camera for the rest of our trip.

 

Purpose: To find a lens solution that satisfies general purpose / wife friendly / travel lens criteria for our

upcoming trip to Vietnam and Cambodia.

 

Research done so far: www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_40D_review_1.html

 

The 24-105 and 17-55 are too expensive.

 

Thinking so far: Two lenses from my existing kit: 12-24 and 50, or one new lens, either the Tamron 17-

50 f/2.8 or Sigma 18-50 EX f/2.8 - could be ideal - no lens changes at all. Not sure about the Canon 17-

85.

Brian, I have about the same problems. Although my wife doesn't have a camcorder, she complains a lot about bulk equipment. I like primes, so my suggestion is to get a real wide angle for the 40D, like a 15mm and take along with the 35, f2 and the 85, f1,8. Sience you already have the tokina 12-24, you could use it along the two lenses above. Good luck!

How about the 18-55 IS? My better half just bought it for her XTi. It's a compromise, but it's cheap and it seems like it produces the image quality of a far more expensive lens. It's also extremely light, and the IS can be very handy when traveling (and also compensates - somewhat - for f/5.6 at the longer end). And with such a small/light "general purpose" lens, you can afford to carry a few primes in your bag if you feel the need.

If I had to go with one lens for travel, I'd probably choose the 17-55IS. I love the low-light capability of the lens, between the f/2.8 aperture and the IS. If I didn't want to spend that substantial amount of money, I'd consider the 18-55 IS. I haven't used it, but reports are that it is quite good, and the size is certainly compact.

 

I went to North Africa last month with a non-photographer (but patient) family member, and took a 40D with 10-22, 17-55IS, and 55-250IS lenses. I'd say I used the 17-55IS about 50% of the time, and the other two about 25% of the time each. There are an awful lot of cool shots wider than 17/18mm or longer than 55mm.

 

For my style, I prefer zooms for travel shooting. Too many fleeting and varied opportunities for primes.

 

Have you considered the Canon G9?

the new (i believe there are two versions) 18-55 has gotten very good write-ups. the test shots i've seen are very impressive. the 17-85 scores quite a bit lower but is still a good option (so the reviewers say).

 

if the tamron and sigma are on IS lenses, the constant 2.8 will not yield an advantage -- you'll have to use higher shutter speeds to make up for lack of IS. this adds weight to the canon 18-55 IS

 

a friend recently bought a canon s5 and is very pleased. this camera's lens has aspherical and ud elements and is possibly best in class. might be an option (costs $300 or so at amazon)

My choice for _the one lens_ is the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens. It has a little barrel distortion at the wide end, but is a decent lens throughout and overs the traditional 35mm lens suite range (28-135mm) very nicely. It is heavier that some lenses, although (as my daughter noted when I complained about it) the whole rig weighs considerably less than a Nikkormat EL plus lens.

 

I have better lenses than this one, but this one still sees more use than any of the others. The IS is a nice feature, too.

The Tamron 17- 50 f/2.8 is not wife friendly: during AF the MF ring rapidly rotates and she

may snag her fingernail.

One lens that has not been mentioned yet is the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. It gives you some speed, is very sharp, and provides coverage equal to 44.8-120mm on a 35mm camera. Like your Tokina 12-24 it's AF and handling are not Canon quality. I use these two together to reduce my parts count, sometimes with a Canon 200mm f2.8. Another solution may be the Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM. I don't have this one, but Bob Atkins says it is a sharp workhorse. It has IS and USM.

 

Jim

What about the EF 28-70mm f/2.8L, used? Or, is that not wide enough?

Here is an article one person's opinion of course on this subject. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/wife.htm I like both the 17-55m and the 24-105mm but a great travel lens is the new 18-55mm IS zoom. Very light and sharp. Good luck. Crop of 18-55mm IS at 4.0. <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6840299-md.jpg"></center>

This world is full of compromises.

 

After much deliberation and some further research, I picked up the Tamron 18-250 f/3.5-

6.3.

 

My first few test shots show terrific image quality (given the compromises of an extreme

zoom). With my EOS 40D, I can easily bump up the ISO when the light gets low, keeping

the shutter speed >1/400 at the long end.

 

This lens doesn't in any way replace my very nice collection of Canon fixed focal length

lenses. These are super sharp and have their specific purposes. The Tamron also has a

specific purpose which it seems to do very well.

 

Happy wife....happy life.

 

Cheers and thanks.