Looking for lens suggestions

[clumsychris]

<p>In the coming weeks I will be switching over from my Minolta 5D to a Canon system (probably the XTi) and I'm looking for some suggestions for a couple of good all-purpose lenses to purchase. I don't want to spend a fortune and I don't need "L" quality lenses, but I still want good quality with good optics and fairly sharp output. I do a lot of landscape, so I'd like something wide-angle (zoomed out to 17 or 18mm) and then something with a decent zoom for portrait work and all-purpose work. I'm thinking of getting the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens, but need suggestions for a good wide angle. Any thoughts? Is the 18-55 IS any good or would it be better to spend extra and go for the 17-85 EF-S IS? I'm really looking to get two lenses to cover a decent focal range, so any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>The 17-55mm IS 2.8 is a bit expensive, but it has outstanding image quality. In this focal range for the XTI, this might be your best bet.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>As Jack said, the 17-55mm is great but on the expensive side.</p>

<p>The 17-85mm you could get for cheap since many of the 50D kit buyers will end up selling it. Looking on Craigslist, they go for around $300. I have this lens mounted on my backup camera (XTi), and I'm happy with the results. However I don't do much landscapes, and many people are not so fond of this lens. It is very sharp in the center, not so sharp in the corners.<br /> Another option is the 10-22mm, another excellent lens, but again, expensive.</p>

<p>Look into Tamrons, I hear the 17-50mm is a great lens. I personally have the 28-75mm and it's as good as any of my "L" lenses from the IQ point of view.</p>

[tom_worster]

<p>+1 on the 17-85 IS. Super-useful zoom range and I think the image quality is <a href="00RmwN">pretty good</a> .<br>

Also +1 on 10-22. I love it.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>Remember that on crop camera's 17mm is just barely wide angle.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Chris, why the aversion to L lenses? There are some very cheaply priced L's; for example, the superb 17-40. Now it is true that 17mm is not that wide on a crop frame body. But, if you're into shooting landscapes, have you considered picking up a used 5D? Now that the Mark II is out, you can pick one up for next to nothing.</p>

[claytontullos]

<p>There are wide angle lens for crop cameras; I own the canon 10-22.<br>

croped<br>

http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_0258-3.jpg<br>

no crop<br>

http://claytontullos.com/images/oregon/50d/_MG_0205.jpg</p>

[matthijs]

<p>The XTi is a great little camera. (Yes, I am thinking of buying a used 5D but when I do I will be keeping my XTi as well. It's small, light and delivers great pictures.)</p>

<p>With regard to your question:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm thinking of getting the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens, but need suggestions for a good wide angle. Any thoughts? Is the 18-55 IS any good or would it be better to spend extra and go for the 17-85 EF-S IS?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're sure that you're going to buy the 28-135 I'd advice to start with adding the 18-55 IS. It's probably available as a kit with the XTi, just remember to check whether they sell the IS version. At the wide end it's as good as the 17-85 according to <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx">this review</a> .</p>

<p>However if you ask me just the 17-85 would probably be enough for any normal use.<br>

To me 17mm on a crop camera is wide enough but different people have different tastes.</p>

<p>I do wonder if you wouldn't want anything longer. Cheap/affordable and not too bad are the 55-250 IS and the 70-300 IS.<br>

(I have a 70-200 myself but those might be too expensive if I read your post correctly."I don't want to spend a fortune... ")<br>

Another lens type that's interesting would be a fast prime (F2 or faster) for shallow depth of field en low light shooting. But that's only if your primary needs are fulfilled.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>If you are shooting landscapes let's make the assumption you are using a tripod a lot which would mean IS less important for you. That would give you the 17-40 L which some say is starting to be challenged by more recent models but is still a great lens. I have this one on my crop-sensor 30D because its 17mm wide end matches the FOV I got from the 28mm I had on a film. But a good alternative is the Tamron 17-50 which is a great little lens (I preferred it to the Sigma equivalent when I tried them out) and it has quality to match the 17-40 but it has two advantages which may or may not be important to you - 10mm more reach at the top end which brings it into portraint lens territory and a constant f2.8.</p>

<p>If you like to do a lot of handheld work with available light then your choices could be slightly different. The 18-55 IS is a well-respected lens at decent cost but is bettered by the 17-85 - the latter will also give a variety of good focal lengths for portrait work. But again, I think the Tamron 17-50 is a strong contender: the constant f2.8 will offset 1.5-2 stops of the IS; it will give you more options on depth of field; and the f2.8 will allow faster shutter speeds to help freeze subject motion which the IS will not do. The best of all worlds would be the 17-55 52.8 IS at about $1,000 which we would all go for if we could justify the cost!.</p>

<p>My personal choice for a reasonably priced lens given your combination of landscapes and portraites would be the Tamron. I only chose the 17-40 because portraits do not feature in my shooting preferences and because of the weather sealing (plus I got the Canon 50mm f1.8 for the longer lengths). But it was a damned close call against the Tamron. <br>

Have a look at these reviews then get to a shop and try them out if possible - take your camera with CF card and have a look at the shots on your computer at home:<br>

<a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html</a><br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>And if you can want a telephoto as well then I would suggest the 70-300 IS which gives great results (for me) and not worry about the gap in focal ranges.</p>

 

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p>My suggestion is to get the 28-135 as a kit lens (so it would cost you less) and then add the 10-22 or 11-16 as a landscape lens. IMHO 17mm or 18mm will not always suffice for landscape but if you are absolutely sure it will, get the 18-55 IS as your kit lens.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

<p> </p>

</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>"Remember that on crop camera's 17mm is just barely wide angle."</p>

<p>I'd call 17mm <em>moderately</em> wide on 1.6 crop. 24mm, say something like the 24-70 or 24-105, is <em>barely</em> wide on crop.</p>

<p>Just to chime in: the 17-85 is a decent start-out lens. The main downside is it's pretty slow. Also, it's corner quality starts to get moderately CA'd at 17mm, but all in all a decent compromise lens. Definitely a good zoom range.</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>Since you don't say what your budget is, I'm going to plug the Tokina 11-16/2.8 and the Tokina 16-50/2.8 lenses. Both can be had for little more than the price of the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 alone. The image quality and build quality of the Tokina lenses are on par with their Canon counterparts.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[clumsychris]

<p>Thanks for the input so far. I'm shying away from the "L" lenses because I seriously just can't justify the cost.Being a poor college student with a part-time job doesn't really allow you to justify big lens purchases. But, I like the thought of being able to upgrade to L lenses in the future, thus the switch to Canon. If I made more money from photography then I could probably justify an L lens also. As far as budget goes, I'd like to spend about $300 per lens, give or take a little bit, which is why the 28-135 is appealing. It seems like a good all-purpose lens that doesn't break the bank. I think that 17mm would be wide-angle enough for my shooting, which is why the Tamron 17-50 doesn't sound like a bad idea, plus it isn't too far out of my price range. Plus I do like the idea of a constant f/2.8 because I shoot some low-light photos as well.</p>

[maijaathena]

<p>Hi Chris, I have a Canon XTi, and I just picked up a [very lightly] used Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 for under $300 on Craigslist. So far, it has served me well. Just a suggestion. -Maija</p>