Best starter lens for Canon 70D

Just got my first DSLR and having been shooting film for a while. I bought a canon 70D and it only has a 35-80 kit lens and need to get something better. I shoot a lot of outdoor landscape and city scapes. Wondering what you guys recommend as a good lens to start on that wouldn’t be overly expensive.

Just got my first DSLR and having been shooting film for a while. I bought a canon 70D and it only has a 35-80 kit lens and need to get something better. I shoot a lot of outdoor landscape and city scapes. Wondering what you guys recommend as a good lens to start on that wouldn’t be overly expensive.

 

 

Assume you have one of the EF35 to 80 F/4~5.6 (1990's releases), not a great lens nowadays when contrasted to the latest EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 IS 'Kit Lens'. - so consider that as a replacement - they're good value for money.

 

You are experienced, so, what are the limitations that you see in the 35 to 80? If you can define the limitations from your point of view, that will make for better advice.

 

WW

I wouldn’t say I’m very experienced to be honest. I’m still working at it and I don’t want the 35mm is a wide enough focal length. I want to get some wider shots but without being limited to only wide. I have looked at a Tokina 12-24mm but thinking that might limit me too much. Thoughts ?

 

Assume you have one of the EF35 to 80 F/4~5.6 (1990's releases), not a great lens nowadays when contrasted to the latest EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 IS 'Kit Lens'. - so consider that as a replacement - they're good value for money.

 

You are experienced, so, what are the limitations that you see in the 35 to 80? If you can define the limitations from your point of view, that will make for better advice.

 

WW

As William said, the 18-55 IS is a decent lens. That will give you the equivalent of 29-88 mm. I also have the Canon 10-22 mm which is nice for wide views, but lacking in reach. The AF is slow with that one, though.

I would go with the 18-135.

I use the Nikon version (18-140) as my GP lens, and we use the 18-135 as the GP lens for the yearbook photographers.

The 18-135 gives more reach than the 18-55, with not that much more bulk, and almost eliminates the need for a longer lens.

Check Canon USA refurbished site. You can get some great deals there, and Canon has a decent warranty on their refurbs.

I use a Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 standard zoom lens for my small camera kit. Wonderful lens, sharp wide open at 2.8, but heavy and expensive. I recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens which I would be perfectly satisfied with at less than half the price of the Canon version and lighter. Excellent professional grade image quality and a great bargain. Maybe stay away from the lenses with the wider zoom range and slower apertures except maybe the Canon EF-S 17-80mm. Good luck.

As said, the 35-80 kit lens is as good as anything you could buy for half again as much, unless you go to the newer kit lenses.

 

I personally think the 17-85mm would have been better, but you already have the 35-80, so why duplicate.

 

You need more wide angle on the one side and more telephoto on the other.

 

There are good options in the 10-20mm zoom length (including a couple of Sigmas) and there are vast numbers of 70 something to 250-300mm lenses on the other.

I use a Canon EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 standard zoom lens for my small camera kit. Wonderful lens, sharp wide open at 2.8, but heavy and expensive. I recommend the Sigma 17-50mm 2.8 lens which I would be perfectly satisfied with at less than half the price of the Canon version and lighter. Excellent professional grade image quality and a great bargain. Maybe stay away from the lenses with the wider zoom range and slower apertures except maybe the Canon EF-S 17-80mm. Good luck.

 

We tried the Sigma 17-50/2.8 at school, and I was not impressed, mainly because the zoom ring was STIFF.

The zoom ring has a short throw of about 60 degrees. That means the zoom cam to push the extending zoom out, has to be steep. That steep cam then requires more force to turn the zoom ring.

I would have preferred a longer throw of the zoom ring (90 or 120 degrees), to get a lighter turning effort.

 

The alternative is the Tamron zoom. BUT the Tamron zoom ring turns in the opposite direction than Canon zooms. This may or may not be an issue.

I’d strongly recommend the Canon EFS 15-85. It has a great focal length range (24-136 full frame equivalent), uses the superior USM focusing system, and has good IS. Very sharp, too. It’s a better lens than the 18-55 - but isn’t fast. You’ll need the expensive and heavy 17-55 2.8 if you want speed.

 

Oh, and forget the much older 17-85. It’s much less sharp.

As said, the 35-80 kit lens is as good as anything you could buy for half again as much, unless you go to the newer kit lenses.

 

I personally think the 17-85mm would have been better, but you already have the 35-80, so why duplicate.

 

You need more wide angle on the one side and more telephoto on the other.

 

There are good options in the 10-20mm zoom length (including a couple of Sigmas) and there are vast numbers of 70 something to 250-300mm lenses on the other.

 

Any thoughts on the canon ef 17-40mm f/4l usm lens ? I can get this one for approx 380USD

My suggestion for the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6IS was based primarily on COST. (i.e. very low cost and good value for money).

 

I think you are in a good position in so far as you really have "no lenses", so you can start from scratch. Based on experience, and if I were staring again, I'd buy a good quality, non-varying maximum aperture, fast "Standard Zoom", the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM as mentioned in Post #6 would be my choice - it is everything as described, but it is more money. I have no experience with the Sigma equivalent mentioned. Tamron make an equivalent also.

 

I think IS is very valuable - I would have that feature in as many lenses as possible. I value non varying maximum aperture for all zoom lenses. I value fast - F/2.8 is fast for a zoom lens.

 

I think that with a quality "Standard Zoom Lens" as the basis of any kit, the kit can then grow to suit the needs and growth of the Photographer, whilst rarely making that first purchase obsolete.

 

WW

My suggestion for the EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6IS was based primarily on COST. (i.e. very low cost and good value for money).

 

I think you are in a good position in so far as you really have "no lenses", so you can start from scratch. Based on experience, and if I were staring again, I'd buy a good quality, non-varying maximum aperture, fast "Standard Zoom", the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM as mentioned in Post #6 would be my choice - it is everything as described, but it is more money. I have no experience with the Sigma equivalent mentioned. Tamron make an equivalent also.

 

I think IS is very valuable - I would have that feature in as many lenses as possible. I value non varying maximum aperture for all zoom lenses. I value fast - F/2.8 is fast for a zoom lens.

 

I think that with a quality "Standard Zoom Lens" as the basis of any kit, the kit can then grow to suit the needs and growth of the Photographer, whilst rarely making that first purchase obsolete.

 

WW

 

Thanks for the reply, so you would stay away from the 18-135 and go with a 17-40, 17-55 type ?

Any thoughts on the canon ef 17-40mm f/4l usm lens ? I can get this one for approx 380USD

 

Very nice lens.

 

Pros

- an EF Mount Zoom Lens, suitable for EF and EF-S mount Cameras, that is flexibility and 'futurebility' (personally I have only one EF-S mount Lens, and that's a collector' edition' whihc I hardly use - I have both APS-C and 'full frame' canon DSLRs)

- wide to short tele on a 70D - meets criteria as "standard zoom" for APS-C

- Non Varying Max Aperture

- solid, L series

 

Cons

- no IS

- F/4 is not 'fast", but it is not "slow" either, considering High ISO capacity of modern DSLRs

 

WW

The 17-40mm are actually very good lenses, I am told. My own direction went to the EF-S 17-85,, which is as good a one-lens kit for the APS-C cameras as there is. Not the 'sharpest', but certainly the 'handiest'.

Thanks for the reply, so you would stay away from the 18-135 and go with a 17-40, 17-55 type ?

 

Depends.

Everything is a compromise. You trade-off one feature/spec to get another.

• The 18-135 is a great GP lens
  
  • The 7.5x zoom ratio is pretty high, and IQ was probably sacrificed to get that zoom range.
     
    
    • You will notice that in general, the FF high IQ pro lenses have a zoom ratio of about 3x or less.
      

    [*]It is not a pro grade lens. So I do not expect pro grade IQ from it.

    [*]As a GP/travel lens I think it is a great lens, within its limits.

  [*]17-55/2.8 has better IQ, but is a large heavy lens with a shorter zoom range.

   

  • How important is it to be able to zoom from 17mm out to 80 or 135mm? It all depends on the shooting scenario.
    
  • With a high IQ lens, you can crop deeper into the image, and you don't need as long a lens. But it would still be short of the 135 at the long end.
     
    
  • Pair the 17-55/2.8 with the 70-200/2.8 and you have a nice pair. The 55-70 gap is small enough to ignore, unless much of your shooting is in the focal range. But this IQ comes at a cost of size, weight and $$$$.
    

  [*]The L-series EF lenses are pro or at least semi-pro grade, so better IQ than the 18-135. And you are paying $$$$ for pro glass.

   

  [*]Another option is the EF-24-105 f/4-L.

   

  • But is 24 too long on the short end?
    
  • The 24-105 is a FF GP lens, so compromised IQ (compared to the 24-70) to get the wider zoom range. And at f/4, it is 1 stop slower than the 24-70/2.8.
    

  [*]Bulk/size/weight

  • Depending on your age and physical condition, the bulk/weight of the lens may be a serious consideration.
    
    • Weight was not a consideration when I was younger, but now it is a major factor when putting together a kit.
      
      • Good pro gear is of no value if I am too worn out to shoot. And I can tell you that after shooting for 5 hours on my feet, I HURT.
        

      [*]Because of this, I now have two sets of gear,

       

      • The lighter consumer/prosumer lens that I can easily carry when traveling.
         
        
      • The heavier pro lenses that I use at home/within cart rolling distance from the car.
        
      • I select my gear based on the shoot.
        

    [*]The standard lens is the lens that you will be carrying around most of the time. So a heavy lens = more weight to carry, ALL THE TIME.

     

    [*]What is easy to handle for 5 minutes in the store can be painfully heavy in a 3+ hour shoot.

    • This is why I got a 70-200 f/4 lens rather than the 2x heavier f/2.8 lens.
      

The 17-40 is a nice lens, but 40mm on the long end is kinda short.

IMHO, you will very soon be looking for a 2nd lens to give you more reach. So you might as well start looking for and planning for that 2nd lens.

And, if you have no problem with the price, the 15-85 is superior to the 17-85; but despite criticism, the latter is a good bargain and works very well -- most of its flaws are easily fixed in software.

In 2019 I would not buy a standard zoom without IS, so IMHO, the 17-40L would not be an option, unless you plan on jumping to FF real soon. The 18-55IS would be the cheapest and is generally considered good. For somewhat more money (like $225-250 / used prices at KEH) the 18-135mm would provide similar optics but more range at the cost of additional bulk and size. The 17-55 F2.8 and 15-85mm both cost about $400 used, and I would likely go for the 15-85mm since its a real good lens with better WA coverage. I would consider the 17-85mm if I could get one at good price and because it has better range and build quality than the 18-55 kit lens.

Thanks for the reply, so you would stay away from the 18-135 and go with a 17-40, 17-55 type ?

 

I steer away from an "all in one lens zoom lens", over 40 years I always have, with only one special exception.

 

That's based on my experience of MY biases. I would rather have two better quality and faster non varying maximum aperture zoom lenses to cover 18 to 135 than one lesser quality, slower zoom lens.

 

My biases are based on the facts that I don't mind changing lenses and/or I don't mind carrying two cameras; secondly I have always thought of the purchase of a lens as being part of my KIT of lenses and how it must be useful of itself and also how it will play its role as part of that kit.

 

Obviously my biases mean that I spend more money and have more lenses than those who have one camera and one 'all in one lens'.

 

Neither position is correct, nor incorrect – simply each choice caters for the Photographer's needs, biases and methodology to achieve the outcomes

 

WW

. . . Everything is a compromise. You trade-off one feature/spec to get another.

 

To the OP -

 

Yes! what Gary wrote - everything is a compromise: the point is you'll be ahead of the game if you define what "compromise" suits you.

 

There's no right or wrong answer.

 

WW

d strongly recommend the Canon EFS 15-85. It has a great focal length range (24-136 full frame equivalent), uses the superior USM focusing system, and has good IS. Very sharp, too. It’s a better lens than the 18-55 - but isn’t fast. You’ll need the expensive and heavy 17-55 2.8 if you want speed.

 

Oh, and forget the much older 17-85. It’s much less sharp.

 

+1 this.

 

There is a surprisingly substantial difference in angle of view between 15 and 17 mm. Also, the 17-85 lens is a very old model that was replaced years ago by the 15-85 . I've owned both, and I think the 15-85 is considerably better. It's a very good walk around lens.

 

I never owned the EF-S 17-55 when I shot APS-C, but from what I read, it is a good lens. You can compare the two here: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Image Quality

I’d strongly recommend the Canon EFS 15-85. It has a great focal length range (24-136 full frame equivalent), uses the superior USM focusing system, and has good IS. Very sharp, too. It’s a better lens than the 18-55 - but isn’t fast. You’ll need the expensive and heavy 17-55 2.8 if you want speed.

 

Oh, and forget the much older 17-85. It’s much less sharp.

 

At $800 the 15-85 is/borderline overly expensive for a beginner.

Any thoughts on the canon ef 17-40mm f/4l usm lens ? I can get this one for approx 380USD

I love mine, a nice sharp wide angle zoom on my full frame, it will be roughly a 27mm-64mm on a crop sensor. It can open up to f/4 across all zoom lengths, good sharp L glass, other than sharper, you will get a little more wide angle.

 

New to DSLRs, we have all been there. You are is the right place here on Photo.net.

 

When choosing your next lens, ask what do I like to shoot, are you a portrait person, are you a landscape wide angle shooter, do you just want a good walking around lens. Do you want a really fast lens good in low light. Each lens is a different tool.

 

Maybe you want to pick up a couple low cost very sharp prime lenses, more fun and exploring photography and bang for the buck. There is the new Nifty 50 f/1.8 STM for around $125, sharp, fast, silent, great bokeh, good in low light, great for video, on a crop camera, can do some fairly nice portraits. Great Bokeh!

 

The Canon 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake lens, really insanely sharp on my 5D MK IV, really as sharp as some L glass lenses. Around $179, pretty darn good in low light, will also work on full frame cameras if you ever upgrade. The lens is so thin it is almost like not having a lens on you camera body. Travels well taking up not much more space than a lens cap. lol.

 

The Canon 24mm F/2.8 STM EF-S Mount Lens For APS-C (Crop camera lens) $99, wider angle, sharp, fairly fast good in low light. Again like the lens above, very thin, travels well. It is an STM so it has quiet motors and would be good for video.

 

If you have a little more money to spend? Are you into shooting wild life or birds, shooting surfers from the beach, mybe look for a nice used 70-200 or Tamron/Sigma 150-600mm. The later on a crop will zoom to 960mm equivellent, with that you can explore the craters on the moon.

 

Maybe a nice used 24-105 L either f/4 or f/2.8 used? (or New?) Would be a very nice walking around lens. I don't know your budget, or your photography interests, and how serious your photography and how much you want to invest in this. There are so many options in new and used and Canon and thrid party lenses.

 

What ever you are considering do some research, look at the reviews, most lenses will have a few people on YouTube doing a video review. And there will be discussions on forums and web reviews with a simple Search engine quiry. Good luck and welcome to the Canon EOS forum on PN.

There's no right or wrong answer

+1

At $800 the 15-85 is/borderline overly expensive for a beginner.

 

Good point. Same is true of the 17-55 noted by several people.