which lens

[snowjunkie]

I appreciate everyone’s input, but the reason I was looking for something in-between the two lenses I have (18-55 &

70-300 IS) is because I am constantly looking for more than the 18-55, and the 70-300 is usually too much. I

basically don’t have a skill level and I am looking for the best way to get an all around lens to use for the majority of

my pictures. I understand what everyone is saying about the prime lenses and I don’t disagree but I am not sure that

is the way for me to go now. I have even considered a wide angle lens but was unsure how useful it would be in this

situation. I was also considering the sigma 18-200 f/3.5-6.3 DC OS AF lens I am just very unsure what to do.

[snowjunkie]

sorry one more thing someone mentioned the 17-85 IS lens would that do the job?

[JDMvW]

The short answer is yes.

 

The long answer is that to get that perfect range you also have to accept some compromises.

 

If you will search this site for "17-85mm" +Canon or some such you will find repeated discussion of this point.

[yakim_peled1]

Optically, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is better than the Canon 17-85 but you'll have to live with slow AF in low light and do without IS. That said, if you can afford the 17-55/2.8 IS then it's the best of all worlds, at a price.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[mark u]

I would avoid the Sigma 18-200 lenses - they are too much of an optical compromise. It may be worth waiting to see if Canon's new 18-200 is worth considering (Nikon's already has a good reputation). You may also want to consider the Sigma 17-70 (probably better than the Canon 17-85 optically, and manages close focus that verges on macro too), or for a little more range, the Sigma 18-125. Tamron's 18-250 also does surprisingly well for such a large coverage range. Yakim's suggestions are excellent lenses, but they don't get over the 55-70 hump. You may find these reviews helpful:

 

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

[lmwalker]

Personally, I don't understand why people knock the Sigma 18-200 OS. I usually carry an EF 24-105/4 L IS and one

of my EF 70-200 L IS lenses (I have both the F/4 and F/2.8) with a 5D. But when it is not practical to carry so much

equipment and/or to change lenses frequently, IMO, I get excellent results with a 30D and the Sigma 18-200 OS. It

is not L quality for sure, and it really only "shines" with good lighting, but I think my results with it are quite good.

 

Here is a link to some high resolution samples that I have posted for it.

http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_hires

[larry_bister]

I use a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM as my walking around lens. I don't do too much that requires a wider angle and it gives me a little extra reach when I need it. To me it's a very versatile lens and I like the results I've had with it. I also have the 18-55 and the 70-300. I don't use the 18-55 much for the same reason you've given. Generally the only time I use it is if I need a wider angle than I can get with my 28-135. The 70-300 comes out when I really need the longer reach. Day-to-day though the 28-135 suits me fine.

[arie_vandervelden1]

Consider Tamron 28-75/2.8. Sharp, fast, inexpensive.