Help choosing a walkaround lens

[steven v]

I'm looking to spend up to $500 or so for a good quality, walkaround zoom lens

for street photography.

 

Here's what I'm flirting with:

 

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM

Canon EF 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS USM

 

 

Important to me are: - relatively small (I want to be real comfortable),

sharpness (my own style tends not to be the soft look, even in portraits), and

versatile (I guess that goes without saying because I'm looking at zooms.

 

Anyone's 2 cents would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

[J.W. Wall]

What camera?

[bobatkins]

Film or APS-C digital?

 

None of those lenses is really wide enough for use on an APS-C digital camera for street work. None is small either.

 

For "street" photography I tend to use primes since they are small, fast and light and there's rarely enough time to compose by zooming anyway.

[steven v]

Oops.

 

Camera is Digital Rebel XT.

 

Bob, thanks for your reply. I do own a 50 prime that I love, I guess I'm looking to add a little bit of versatility for when "street" means more sightseeing and stills.

[alfaromeo]

17-40 F/4 L , maybe a little more than $500, but still around this, very good lens

[steve_dunn2]

<p>All three are above-average consumer zooms. I've owned two of them: the 28-105 (well, I had an earlier version, but it's mechanically and optically identical to the current one) and the 28-135. <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">The 28-135 is the better of the two overall</a>, plus adds a bit more reach and IS. But it's bigger, heavier, and costs more. By reputation, the 24-85 is comparable to the 28-105.</p>

 

<p>As others have pointed out, none of these go particularly wide on a 1.6-crop body. The 28-135 replaced the 28-105 as my walkaround lens on a film body, but when I went digital, I had to add a wider lens. I chose the 17-40, which is pretty much what you'd expect of an L lens. But it isn't long enough to be a walkaround lens, so I now have a two-lens kit as my most compact kit (17-40 and 28-135).</p>

 

<p>The 17-85 is the 28-135's equivalent for a 1.6-crop body, and it's reputed to be similar in pretty much every way: similar optical quality, similar mechanics, similar AF performance, has IS, etc. If you expect to stick with a 1.6-crop body, or don't mind the prospect of having to sell the lens when you upgrade the body, it's well worth considering. Another 1.6-crop-only lens which might be worth considering is the 17-55, but as it's a constant f/2.8 zoom, it's bigger and more expensive and obviously doesn't go quite as long (it's roughly equivalent to a 28-90).</p>

[mark f]

I'll second the 17-40mm advice. It is an amazing lens...especially for the price. I also have a 28-105mm that is OK optically, but not as well constructed and does not focus nearly as well as the 17-40mm. I still use it when I need the extra reach.

[delwyn_ching]

17-40 f/4.0L would be my first choice and still is.

[daniel_cara_nova]

Sigma 18-50mm F/2.8 EX would be my choice !

[dror_yalon]

At this price range, I cannot think of anything better than the 85/1.8 prime. Small, very quick, and incredible IP:

http://www.pbase.com/dror_yalon/image/41122274/original.jpg

Dror

[wgpinc]

The EOS 24-85mm is an okay lens. Since I got my 24-105 L lens I'm not using my EOS 24-85mm as much but it is lighter and plenty sharp. A real money maker. I'll probaly sell mine for around $200. Probably also sell my EOS 28-135mm IS for around $300. A good walkaround lens to me would be the new Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 that gets good reviews and goes for around $450. Of course the Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS lens would be great but it is about twice your budget. Good luck.

[steve santikarn]

given your requirements I'd go with the EFS 17-85 IS lens. It is cheap, has good zoom range for Street/Travel photography, not too big or heavy, and has IS. Not as sharp as the 17-40 but IMHO the zoom range and IS makes up for the difference in real world usage.

[phule]

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.5

 

No IS, but faster (aperture) than the Canon 17-85 and with less distortion at the 17mm end. Plus you can get one from Calumet Photo for $340.

[vinke]

Tamron 17-50 2.8. IQ is really something special. 17-40 is good, but it's slower and

heavier and larger. Tamron should serve your needs.

 

If you can do without zoom I'd recommend what I now use on my 20d for street scences:

the 24/2.8. It's small, light, sharp, a great fit on xt and an entirely practical focal length at

38mm. I love it.

 

By the way, I've owned and used all lenses mentioned above (and many others from Canon

and Sigma). Most I did not use so I sold them all except for 24/2.8, 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and

85/1.8. I find that 1 of the 4 will usually suit the job at hand.

[steven v]

Thank you to all for your help. I'm going to consider the wider angle options before purchasing any of my three initially mentioned options.

 

Thanks.

[kiloromeo]

In your price range I would say try to get a EFS 17-85 IS. It is small, the IS is great.

The downside is a F5.6 aperture at 85mm, which doesn't auto-focus well in less than daylight conditions.

If it were faster it would be the ultimate walking around lens for EFS cameras, for the price you can learn to compensate for the speed deficit.

If you get a used one there will probably be a hood included. You probably will see a used one around since they recently came out with the more expensive EFS 17-55 which is sharper and faster, heavier and larger.

Do not be fooled by non-IS cheapness, it is a great feature.

[iori]

While I am enamored with my 17-40L lens, on my Rebel XT, it was not wide enough or long enough to be an ideal walkaround lens. I frequently found myself carrying and swapping out with my 24-105L lens for those occasions that I needed the extra reach. Since going full-frame with the 5D, the 24-105 stays on the camera about 90% of the time, and I am very happy about not having to carry two lenses or switch lenses at inopportune moments. If I still used a crop camera as my primary, I would have seriously considered the 17-85IS as a travel lens for its versatility and light weight.

[steven v]

Harry, Iori, thanks for your input. I was just looking at a review of the EF-S 17-85 IS , in fact, right before I looked at the thread again.

 

Here is the progress that I've made:

- Deciding against any L lens, I love the sharpness, but more than I want to spend now.

- Ruled out any lens over 85mm. I realized that I just don't need anything longer than that for my walkaround lens (especially with my 1.6X factor).

 

That leaves me deciding between 24-85 f/3.5 USM vs. EFS 17-85 f4-5.6 IS.

 

Puting aside the $200 price difference, here's where I am. The 17-85 is wider at the wide end, and has IS which is nice. But, f5.6 is slow, and I'm worried I might not get the dof (background blur) that I like . The 25-85 is, of course, not as wide at the wide end, but is faster.

 

Life's not easy!

[yakim_peled1]

Another vote for the 17-40/4. Absolutely can not afford it? Tamron 17-50/2.8.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[vinke]

I've owned and used a couple of copies of the ef-s 17-85 because i really wanted to like it. On paper it seems ideal.

 

Here's what I did not like, each time: big-time vignetting and barrel distortion, very slow and IS will not help for moving subjects (ie, people shots in lower light conditions, which crop up more than you think, even outdoors), overall poorer IQ when compared to:

 

Tamron 17-50/2.8. Probably the best value out there. Again, completely on par with 17-40, little longer and quite a bit faster. If you must have a zoom, then this is what I'd recommend for street shooting.

[saltcod]

I use a 24-85 and its just an OK lens. Its better than a kit lens by a country mile, but still very lacking in colour rendition, sharpness and flare. I'd recommend it if you could afford no more than this amount, but strongly recommend getting a 17-40 instead. As predicted, the 24-85 isn't 'good' enough, and I'm off for a 17-40 asap.

[m_barbu1]

Personally, I tend to favor telephoto lenses for street photography. People (especially strangers to me) tend to get self-conscious if they know they are being photographed. Therefore, my vote would be for the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=Search&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=USA&addedTroughType=search">70-200mm f/4L USM</a>. If you're certain that wouldn't be a concern for you, go with the 17-40mm f/4L USM. Both are a little bit more than what you stated you want to spend, but I don't think the other options you mentioned are as sharp as the two f/4L lenses I am suggesting.

[lauren_macintosh]

Take A look at the EF-S 17-85mm lens ,I like it for a walk around lens!

[john_bacheller]

<p>I had the Canon 24-85, and my copy at least wasn't great - I wound up selling it and replacing it with a Sigma 17-70, which is sharper and gives more contrasty images. Also, it's relatively light and has very good macro capability.</p>