Which of these for a single walkaround lens?

[robert_thommes]

I'm planning what I call a typical 5 day vacation. Lots to see and do. But,

for practicality, I'm thinking that I should try and limit myself to a single

lens; as I'll have enough other stuff in tow as well. I have a good idea of

the pros and cons of each of these lenses, but was simply asking your opinions

as which single lens YOU would take if it had to be ONE of these.

These are all Canon's: 18-55 "kit" lens, 50mm f1.8, or 28-105 3.5/4.5 USM.

 

Thanks for your input.

Bob

[jcolwell]

Assuming you have a crop factor body, I think the 18-55 would be the most versatile.

[jon_austin]

The 18-55 is an EF-S lens, I believe, so that implies 1.6x crop body.

 

From the choices you listed, I would pick the kit lens for its range, stop it down to f/5.6 or f/8 or so and fire away.

[jimstrutz]

I agree with James. The 28-105 would be great if you have a full frame body, but since you cite having the 18-55, most likely you don't. Some people would go with the 28-105 anyway, since it is a better lens, but on a small frame body it has no wide end, just normal to long. Some people find that great, but it would annoy me to no end.

[jake_izumi]

the 17-85IS is the best single walk-around lens , and I think the sigma OS is not a bad lens either, I have had the OS for a month and it has been ok , but I do have the 17-85IS and so I am trading it in to get the EF70-300IS , which I had it before the Sigma and I sold it stupidly and now , missing it.

 

The 17-85IS and EF70-300IS combo is the best light wight with least optical compromises kinda kit IMHO.

 

I kit it with some primes such as the EF35f2 , the EF85 f1.8 and the EF100 macro USM(my favorite lens very useful and versatile).

 

The second best might be the 18-200OS Sigma with a few fast primes like the EF 85f1.8, EF35 f2 , ef-s 60 macro for macro and portrait works and 100macro for macro and head shots.

 

Dont buy these 28 something zooms or the EF50 f1.8 , they are complete obsolete , the 28 is too long and useless on a crop IMO, I think you need a lens start from 17mm or 18 , if you have to choose your walk around lens from these three lenses you listed , then you should go with the kit.

 

 

Get the kit with an EF85f1.8 and then add an EF 35 f2, which is a quite good lens ,it is an old lens , though.

 

At f5.6 the kit is quite sharp with good color , better than the Sigma 17-70 or 18-50 macro............

 

But I think the 17-85IS or the Tamron 17-50 might be better because they have 17mm wide angle , on a crop EOS body , the 17mm and 18mm are very differnet views , especailly the 17-85IS has wider 17mm(more like 16.5 mm) than that of the Tamron 17-50 or Canon EF-S17-55IS(more like 17.5).

 

I had all of these Tmaron 17-50, Canon 17-55Is and Canon17-85IS and sold the Canon 17-55IS , which collects too much dust and creeps too often.

[robert_thommes]

Jake,

 

Need to go with what I've got. Leaving for the trip at 7am tomorrow.

 

Bob

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Robert,

 

I agree with James, Jon and Jim... Stop down the aperture of the Canon EF-S 18-55mm to f5.6 (if you have the available light), and you'll be taking the most versatile lens of the three that you own.

 

The lens has very decent optics at f/5.6, f/8, and f/11.

 

//Chuck

[zackojones]

If it were me I would take them all just in case but if you must stick with just one take the kit lens. Enjoy the vacation!

[rainer_t]

From what you have take the 18-55 ... but if you had the 17-85, that would be better.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>With the choice being restricted to only those three lenses, it's easy: 18-55. It's the worst of your three lenses, but on 1.6-crop, the other two lenses can't be a single walkabout lens for me. The 28-105 was a good walkabout lens in the film days, but on 1.6-crop, it has no wide coverage; it's a normal-to-tele zoom. The 50 is even less useful as a single lens on 1.6-crop; while lots of people used to have a normal lens as their only lens way back in the day, the 50 isn't a normal lens on 1.6-crop: it's a medium telephoto, very good for portraiture but not much good as a walkabout lens.</p>

 

<p>Take the 18-55, try to stop it down to f/8 or so when possible, and start figuring out what lens(es) to buy before your next trip :-)</p>

[dogbert]

I'd take both the 18-55 and the 28-105 for a bit of extra reach. The 28-105 is small enough to carry in small shoulder bag designed for a twin lens kit (which are hardly bigger than dslr snoot bag).

[William Michael]

My vote too:

 

From the choices you listed: take the 18 to 55 kit lens for its range use it at F 7 to F11.

 

If you are a low light person, as I am, and it is possible, carry the 50mm F1.8 in your pocket.

 

WW

[jake_izumi]

Hi , I am sorry to report this , but I think I have to , the Sigma OS lens , suddenly stopped working last night , I was lucky not put all my zooms on line auction site yet .

 

So I can not recommend it any more , plus when you close scrutinize images from the lens, the color is odd.

[awindsor]

Jake Izumi wrote

<blockquote>

Dont buy these 28 something zooms or the EF50 f1.8 , they are complete obsolete , ... then add an EF 35 f2, which is a quite good lens ,it is an old lens , though.

</blockquote><P>

 

It all depends on what focal lengths you use. Persoanlly my 50/1.8 sees heavy use on my 20D but not on full frame. On my 20D it is the shorter of my two portrait lenses (I also use an 85/1.8). I own a 35/2 but it sees little use on my 20D. <P>

 

I personally agree with your stand against 28-xxx zooms but that is because I like the wide end. My 28-135 sees very little use on my 20D. Puppy Face likes the 28-135 on crop factor since it gives him longer reach and he didn't miss the wide end.