Beginner need help with first lens for travel

[joseph_fok]

I'm getting my first DSLR most likely the 40D. However I'm having a hard time choosing which lens to get. The

primary reason is that will be spending a bit of time travelling around Europe. Therefore will be on a budget of around

600 as well.

 

Initailly was thinking of the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II USM or 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 USM. But after reading the forum a bit, seems

like that a wider lens is better for my application. So down to 17-85 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM or 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 USM.

 

I'm leaning towards the 17-85 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM, because it's got a bigger zoom range, but am very concern if f/4.5

will be able to handle the low light situation inside of buildings. The 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 USM seems better compromise

but is 55mm sufficient zoom.

 

Or should I wait and see how the new 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS perform? I'm a bit sceptical on the quality of the lens having

such a large zoom range.

 

Anyone got any bright idea on which lens is best or any alternative? Another thought is to add a prime lens say

24f/2.8 or 28f/2.8 to the mix.

 

Any help would be appreciated. Joseph

[apetty]

I use the 17-85 daily and love it, but it may be a little slow for low light situations. Other than that it's a really good lens.

 

I use it on the 40D.

[anders_carlsson]

I would personally really wait and see how the new 18-200 performs. It might not be stellar throughout but it could easily equal the 17-85 in that range. It's certainly not a bad thing that it's f/3.5 at the short end. A prime is always nice to keep in the pocket. If you splurge on, say, the 18-200, how about a $75 50/1.8? It will give you plenty of creative opportunities with its nice colors, "tighter" focal length and small aperture.

[tdigi]

I have a 40D with a few L lenses and I am adding a Tamron 17-50 2.8 to my kit. I find my 24-105 is not wide enough so I

would suggest something at least 17 wide for travel.

[henrik_lauridsen]

You will struggle to get good indoor shots at available light with the mentioned lenses, due to their small maximum aperture. An IS lens might be able to do the trick though. I would agree with Tommy, on your budget, get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It is an excellent lens. That should also leave room in your budget for the 50mm f/1.8, I don't think any EOS owner should be without it (unless you have the 1.4 or 1.2 of course).

[wgpinc]

Agree with those above re the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It should handle 75% of your trip. You may want to add the $280 Canon 55-250mm IS lens for the times you want something with more reach. This would give you a reasonably light kit with reach from 17-250mm (27 to 400 accounting for the 1.6 crop factor). Travel light and have a great trip.

[amlan]

Another vote for Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Canon 55-250 combo. 17-85 is a fine lens but if you are really want to take indoor pictures without using the Auto Mode, this lens won't help much at the longer end of the zoom. The Tamron also comes with a hood ...

[brad_ballheimer]

im trying to remember(im at work goofing off) whch it is but I have a 24-105mmf3.5is (it was part of a deal canon had w the 5dabout a year ago.the sales guy took it out of a kit and sold it to me" its been a great "travel lens" i prefer the term general shooter.it will be a little different for you as im using on 1dsmk2 you will have a crop factor.

I can tell you though if you want shooting latitude you could start w what i started with when i went eos system which was 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8 actually between these 2 lenses you will be hard pressed not to have what you need.

[arthur_reyes1]

Joseph

I'd go for the 17-85 IS. Its the equivalent of the 28-135 on a full frame camera. I use that lens on my Elan IIe (yes...still using film) when all I can take is one lens and one lens only, especially when travelling. Before that I had the 28-105 and many times that was the only lens I'd take on vacation. Sure, I'll miss the wider or longer lens, but with the 28-135, its still usefull for >90% of the shots I'll get. The IS is nice and usefull. If you need a steadier shot, brace yourself against a wall or place the camera on something. The key is to use good camera holding technique. If you need to, up the ISO a bit. That's the nice part about digital...tough to do with film. If travelling light is key, then I'd go with the 17-85.

Have fun.

[tusharrajyaguru]

If you can stretch your budget, Canon EF-S17-55 f2.8 IS USM is the best companion for EOS 40D for travel.

[JDMvW]

The lenses that top out at 55mm are too short for a "general" lens unless you go ahead and get something longer too.

 

The only real option for the "universal" lens is the 17-85mm IS. It has its warts, but nearly everyone (but not all) people who have had it, find it to be the number one choice for general utility. See the Photozone.de and Bob's review (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef-s_17-85_review.html ) which detail its problems and you can decide if you can live with them. I would not be without this lens, and sometimes it is the only lens that I carry when I want or have to travel light.

[rogernoel]

I totally agree with Tushar R. I just spent three weeks in Austria and Germany. Never took my 17-55

f 2.8 IS USM lens off my 30D. Well maybe a couple of times to use the Sigma 10-22 WA lens. There were a few instances where it would have been nice to have a longer lens, but they stayed home. Too much to carry. I did do some cropping of some shots in Munich and Salzburg, but for the most part I don't agree that 55mm is too short, unless you are shooting wildlife, sports from a distance etc.

[tdigi]

for a beginner I would not spend $1000 bucks when the Tamron is smaller, lighter and cheaper and very close in quality.

[joseph_fok]

Thanks for all that's responded I think I'm down to 2 options here.

 

Either just to take out the 17-85 IS, it should give me all the range that I'll need and hope that the IS will make up for the longer exposure. Given I don't think I'll be taking action shot which should be ok.

 

Otherwise get the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Canon 55-250 combo. I think the Tamron will definately give me better result, but not sure if I'll be changing lens often between the Tamron and the Canon.

 

The upcoming 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 IS sounds like a great idea, just one lens that seems to do everything, but not sure about the quality, will have to wait for someone to do a review for that.

 

I'll try to find a brick and mortor shop that got the Tamron and test it the zoom range to see if that'll be able to meet my need without too many lens change.

[tdigi]

I have seen some good samples with the new 18-200 but its a $700 lens so I would expect it to produce good results. I am

a little skeptical of hyperzooms and this one does not use a USM motor so I wonder about its speed and performance.

 

Always best if you can try some out in a store. it will make the decision much easier.

 

good luck.

[bilal_khan]

If youre starting out, I suggest the 17-85mm, I started about a year ago and tired a lot of lenses before discovering the 17-85 mm. The IS will DEFINATELY make up for the longer exposure, it makes a HELL of a difference.

 

Also, when shooting wide angle landscape shots, you'd want higher f numbers, so the IS REALLY comes in handy there (particulary if you dont have a tripod around). It OK as a people lens, as long as you use flash. Its crisp, and the colours are better than the 18-55mm stocks on the lower end cameras. With travel shooting, and thats exactly what I use it for, theres NO problem. Sometimes I feel like I want a little range and carry a cheapo 75-300mm along. Thats a very light lens and cheap so you can just purchase that if you're on a budget and really want the range.

 

The 17-85mm is, however, heavy, and a little big as opposed to some tamron models you can get which also have a longer range, eg 18-200. I used one of those (in fact I still have it lying around), but it was really annoying for some reason; lots of distortion, and by lots I mean LOTS. It was light, but not well balanced on my canon 400D, 20D or 450D.

 

If you dont mind the weight, get the 17-85. You won't go wrong.