Another walkaround lens dilemma

<p>I'm currently considering three lenses for this duty, but from those I'd ideally like only one, or two, at the very most. In researching these lenses, some consider them either perfect for the job, or mediocre, or terrible. (How often does one get any real definitive answers for questions like this anyway.) These are Canon 18-55IS, Sigma 18-135(non-IS, the older model), or Canon 28-135IS.<br>

I have my own thoughts on this decision, but would like your feedback first. I define "walkaround lenses" as ONE lens that can be utilized for MOST situations where the actual subjects may not be fully known. Maybe something like for a tour, or shore excursion from a cruise ship....where you really don't know what you'll see until it's right there in front of you, AND traveling light is beneficail. Thanks.</p>

<p>I personally can't consider the 28-135 IS a decent walkaround lens for crop-frame because it simply isn't wide enough. People who never shoot wide may disagree.</p>

<p>OK. So...of these 3 which one(s) would you advise?<br>

I personally see 18mm as "nice" to have, yet I can't say that I would miss it. For a long time, my widest lens was a 28mm. However, once I started using an 18mm more(if I actually had one), I might find differently.</p>

<p>What about the Canon 18-135 IS? It's about $20 more I think and is much newer than the 28-135</p>

<p>If you can afford it, I would highly recommend the 24-105 f4L IS USM.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You haven't indicated which body you are using?<br>

If you are using a small sensor body, then you will probably be needing something down in the 18mm focal length to get wide enough for a "walk around" as Alan indicated.<br>

If you are using a full frame sensor body, then the 28mm may be wide enough, but IMHO the 24mm focal length on the wider end would probably be better.</p>

<p>I'm using a 1.6X crop sensor. So now, referring to these specific 3 lenses, how would you go?<br>

I realize that my lens choices are endless. But I have expenses to deal with and these 3 lenses are my current lenses of interest for walkaround purposes.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>For me the best walk around lens is the 24-105 L on a FULL frame. With a crop body, I would get a 17-55 2.8 IS or the 17-40 L. Now the lens choices you have I think the best is the 18-55 IS. I have not had one but I hear it's a great kit lens. I do know ONE thing, the 28-135 IS is the worst zoom I have ever used. I had 2 copies and they both were super soft. Final answer is 18-55 IS for the choices you provided. v/r Buffdr</p>

<p>Thanks, Buffdr. </p>

<p>If you can spend a bit more money, then the 15-85 IS USM might be a good choice.</p>

<p>My general rule when I'm indecisive is to go with the cheaper option and wait for my needs to become clearer. So of the lenses you list, the EF-S 18-55 IS is the one I'd suggest. It's a fine lens in many ways - reasonable IQ and the image stabilizer works well.</p>

<p>On a 1.6 crop factor camera, 55mm is not long enough for a single lens solution. So rule out the 18-55. I already had a 17-55 and two 70-200s (f4.0 non-IS and f2.8 IS). Then I ordered the 28-135 as a kit lens with my 7D. It's not as fast as the other lenses and IQ isn't quite as good. But I end up using it quite a bit because the range is great and the quality is decent. IS is a nice bonus, very helpful with slower lenses. I have no experience with the Sigma, but the 28-135 is a fine lens. You'd have to figure out how often you'll use the 18-28 range and weigh that against the benefits of IS.</p>

<p>People are saying great things about Canon 15-85. I love my 24-105L, but I agree that on a small sensor you may prefer something wider. I am very happy with Tokina 16-50 f/2.8. Very fast, much better build quality than Sigma or Tamron, but in the end isn't that much cheaper than Canon 17-55 f/2.8</p>

<p>With the 1.6 crop sensor, and the choices you list . . . definately the Canon 18-55 IS.<br>

But . . . moving away from your list . . . the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF, only because I do have experience with this lens on my 50D. "It's nearly as sharp and as fast as some of my Canon L's!</p>

<p>If I had to choose from your list: 18-55 IS. Reviews I've read of the Sigma are mostly negative. I've owned the 28-135 and did not like it on my 1.6x camera.</p>

<p>If I could offer an alternative: Canon's 17-85 IS. It's in the same price ballpark as the 28-135, but it has a more useful range for your 1.6x, and IMNPO (NP = non-professional) has better image quality. It was the only lens I had with me at Niagra Falls this past weekend and I felt I was covered.</p>

<p>OK. Time for me to respond back with my thinking. Of the 3 lenses, the Sigma 18-125 would be the best option from a range standpoint. However, it gets the lowest scores in IQ. The shortest one..18-55IS..gets the highest scores, and would be my lens of choice(of these 3) with no reservations if it were longer. I have used the Canon 28-135IS in the past and have found it to be just fine. (Maybe that says something about my level of quality; as many people don't think much of this lens.) So......until I hear anything strongly to the contrary, I guess my vote would go for a two lens outfit of the 18-55 AND 28-135. With few exceptions, I think the 28-135IS would see action about 90% of the time for unknown walkaround activities.<br>

Thanks to all for your responses.</p>

<p>I had both the Sigma 18-125 non IS and the Canon 18-55 IS. The Sigma had more coner shading at 18mm at full aperture and was unsharp at the right hand side at 125mm until stopped down. The Canon was cheaper, lighter and sharper however the focus motor has failed so I bought another one for £75, split from a kit. The 28-135 would not be wide enough for me.</p>

<p>David,<br>

Yet you felt the 18-55 was long enough for most of your needs?</p>

<p>Wow, it's been since October & November 2008 and you still haven't decided?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RVt6</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RWXQ</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RJUs</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RNR6</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RKxO</p>

<p>Even with the 2009 post, you still didn't get the information you needed?</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00StOr</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Robert,<br>

In Venice 85% of my photos were taken with the 18-55 and in Santorini 80% despite having a longer lens with me (55-250).</p>

<p>Hi Robert,<br /> I am an amature and have a 50D with tamron 17-50 f 2.8 . I would defenitely recommend that you include this in your list.It is worth considering.</p>

<p>18-55IS is superb at 18mm, but soft at 55. My basic lens is EF35 (90% of shots). 18-55IS 5% of shots and EFS60 5% of shots. EF35 at stops 4 and 5.6 is significantly better than 18-55IS at 35mm. I recommend EF35 as a basic lens.</p>

<p>If there was a less expensive lens similar to the 24-105L, that would be perfect. But this "L" lens is about 4X more expensive than I can afford. So, my lens dilemmas also seem to have, what seem to be, almost impossible monetary restrictions. My quest is always to consider the BEST lenses that I can afford for the LEAST money. But that almost seems to be an oxy-moron.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My quest is always to consider the BEST lenses that I can afford for the LEAST money</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Primes offer the best quality per dollar or if you want something similar to the 24-105 the 15-85 is the APS-C version of this lens, well almost, but for $600 with the rebates its not a bad deal. Maybe just expand your budget a bit, obviously you are spinning your wheels on making this decision. </p>

<p>Wow since 2008 and your still looking for the right lens. By now you should have been able to save and get all three and call it a day. If the advice these people have been giving you has not helped you to choose your best bet would be to buy all three and decide for your self Good Luck.</p>