What Lens do you recommend?

[williamsquire]

<p>I have a Canon T1i or 500D for the UKers. It came with the kit lens which gets the job done but I want a new lens that will really take advantage of the quality this camera has to offer.<br>

Currently I am looking at the 15-85mm USM IS and wonder what users think about it.<br>

or<br>

What lens do you recommend - considering that I want a well rounded lens, one I don't really have to change.<br>

or<br>

How about Tamron lens, are they any good? Which ones?<br>

Thanks in advance for your help and advice!</p>

<p>Squire</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 and very happy with it, non VC version. I cannot vouch for the VC version as it gets mixed reviews.</p>

[jim_j2]

<p>William,<br>

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 AF SP XR Di II LD IF (Same as Maunel above) and I've been very pleased with it. It is nearly as sharp as some of my Canon L glass.</p>

<p>I too have the non VC (Image stabilization) version.<br>

From reading many of the forums here on PN, the newer VC version of the Tamron 17-50 gets some mixed reviews as Manuel pointed out too.</p>

<p> </p>

[paddler4]

<p>I have the next longer, Tamron, 28-75 f/2.8, which does not have VC. It's a very good lens. However, you can't generalize from one lens to another. You have to decide what type of lens you want --length, speed, etc.--and compare brands for that particular type.</p>

<p>You wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I want a well rounded lens, one I don't really have to change</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No such beast. No one lens does everything well. That's the whole point of an SLR: it lets you change lenses for different purposes. However, if you describe more clearly what kinds of shooting you do much of the time, you might find one lens that covers much of that. For example, many people use the Tamron 17-50 as a walk around lens because that is the length that covers a lot of what they shoot. I use the Tamron 28-75 for the same purpose, because for my particular uses, I'd rather have the extra length and forgo the wide angle. So the starting point should be what you shoot. BTRW, your current lens has a pretty good reputation, so the first question should be what you want to do that it won't/</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>If I hadn't gone for a combo of both crop and full-frame camera's (and bought lenses that cover both crop and FF) I'd have bought the 15-85. I love the build quality, the range, the colors and the sharpness.</p>

<p>However, that choice would have been mine only because I also have fast primes. As you state that you don't want to swap lenses the 15-85 plus primes route might not be for you.<br>

(Though it may still be the best one lens solution because of the previously stated qualities.)</p>

<p>If I didn't have fast primes and wanted "one lens to rule them all" I'd look for a 2.8 zoom.</p>

<p>Depending on my budget and focal length wishes I'd choose one of these:</p>

<p>Best overall 2.8 zoom: EF-s 17-55/2.8 IS<br>

Next best: Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC, Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC or Tamron 28-75/2.8<br>

Worse than that: keep the kitlens.</p>

<p>All the best, Matthijs.</p>

<p>By the way, you can find sample pictures of all these lenses <a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406">here</a>.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"What lens do you recommend"</strong></em><br>

<br>

EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM.<br>

<br>

My recommendation is based upon your succinct question; your Bio; your answer to the moire question; and then biased by your 209 images, posted here.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>The 15-85mm IS lens is a very nice upgrade to the older 17-85mm IS. I have the older lens, and like any lens covering this sort of range, there are compromises that have to be accepted (this is true even of the much-beloved EF 24-105mm IS L lens). The warts, such as they are are easily fixed on the rare occasions on which they intrude. The 15-85 is the natural (i.e., Canon-intended) upgrade for the kit lens.<br>

The range is by far the best for day-to-day shooting that there is. At least 75% of my shooting is done with these lenses (the 17-85 on the APS-C and the 24-105 on the 35mm format). It's just soooo handy. Longer zooms mean more optical compromises, so this one is the meeting point of utility and quality.<br>

Shorter range zooms can be optically better, <em>can be</em>, not always <em>are</em>, I hasten to add. Check the specific tests at sites like <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a>. I personally will always try to get something with image stablization (called by different names by different manufacturers, Canon owns "Image Stabilization") whenever it is offered. It's worth every penny (well, dollar).</p>

[richard_crowe4]

<p>I will agree with William above that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is probably the ultimate glass for a crop camera.<br>

I travel all over the world with mine and the constant f/2.8 aperture combined with IS capability makes it not only an all-around lens but, a great low light glass.<br>

See my China images at: <a href="http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/">http://rpcrowe.smugmug.com/</a>. These were shot about 60% with the 17-55mm and 40% with the 70-200mm f/4L Is lenses.<br>

The drawback of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is its high price. I have had no problems with its build or reliability.</p>

[rogernoel]

<p>I replaced my 30 D with the 7D because I wanted to continue to use the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM lens. I was going to buy the new 5D as it was only about $600 or $700 more, but then I realized I would have to buy at least one L lens as the 17-55mm would not work on the FF. Of my six lenses, 2 are EFS and the other 4 would work with the full frame 5 D. I say all of this because I want to also recommend you consider the Canon 17-55 mm lens. Go for it.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>Tamron 17-50/2.8 is just as good so long as you don't mind the missing USM or the IS. </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I traded the 17-40/4L USM for the 17-55/2.8 IS USM, and couldn't be happier. It lacks the weather sealing of the L lens (which is pretty much irrelevant for my uses) and its build quality is high-end consumer rather than pro (which is perfectly good for me and, I suspect, for at least 99% of EOS camera users), but as far as optical quality is concerned, it can hold its own against L zooms (the other two zooms in my current kit are the 24-105/4L IS USM and 70-200/2.8L IS USM, so I have some idea of what to expect from an L zoom's optics). So if a fast zoom with a similar range to your current lens fits your needs, I can wholeheartedly recommend the 17-55.</p>

 

<p>If you don't need the speed but need more reach on one or both ends, the 15-85 has a very good reputation. It replaces the 17-85, which was one of the better non-L zooms in the Canon lineup, but adds a bit more width and by all accounts improves the optics. The 17-85 at this point can only really be recommended if you simply cannot afford the 15-85.</p>

 

<p>Anything with a bigger zoom range is going to compromise the optics. Unless you're looking at Canon's 28-300, but that's not a general-purpose zoom unless you have a full-frame body.</p>

 

<p>There are a number of third-party alternatives; I am not familiar with them, either from personal experience or by reputation, so I will have to leave it to others to comment on them.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p><em>I want a well rounded lens, one I don't really have to change.</em></p>

<p>Well if that's the only criterion, the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/542292-REG/Canon_2297B002_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2L.html">EF 200mm f2L IS USM</a> is the ticket. </p>

[jim_krupnik]

<p>I vote for the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens. It is one of two EF-S lenses with "L" class performance that (to me) really completes an APS-C camera kit. The 1.6x crop factor that we enjoy for the way it extends the reach of mid to long tele lenses is a real PITA at wide to normal focal lengths, as L class zooms in those ranges were designed for FF cameras, and become something completely different on a crop body. These two lenses erase that lens deficit in fine fashion.</p>

<p>The 17-55 offers outstanding optical performance with no standout bad habits in the areas of fringing or distortion, a fast constant aperture, accurate and silent AF, and amazing IS functionality. It has also proved to be very durable, and highly resistant to exterior battle scars. Mine is about five years old now, and has been the closest thing to a "normal" lens for me since my first 30D. The 30D's are long gone, but the 17-55 is still at the top of it's class, and the pain of it's purchase price is long forgotten. I expect that it will still be a top performer even after my 7D is removed from the Canon catalog. Besides, unless the seller is desperate for cash, or selling a seriously beat up lens, they still command a used price nearly as high as what I paid for mine new.</p>

<p>You will likely buy other lenses over time, but I doubt that you would ever regret buying an EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens now, or wish you bought a lens of similar range in a different brand. Happy choosing....</p>

<p>Here is a shot of my favorite APS-C foundation lenses together. The 17-55 is on the 40D (left side), and the 10-22 is on the 50D.<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400375107_228c3214f5.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

[williamsquire]

<p>Wow,<br>

That is a lot of geat information. Thanks so much for replying and giving me some great choices. I think I will stay a way from Tamron for now and pony up the $$$ for a great Canon lens. Although I don't want to run into the shop to pick up a new lens I will take my time and do more research based on the above!<br>

Thanks again!</p>

[zarathu_uberroth]

<p>The problem with these questions is that the responder always assumes that the questioner has unlimited pockets. And maybe most people here do. Maybe most people here think nothing of picking up a $1200 lens. But most posters don't tell us that.<br>

If you want to pixel peep, then you can find all kinds of things that you won't see if you just print your prize photo of the mother horse and her colt in 11 x 14 or 16 x 20. <br>

Anther thing that is rarely mentioned by questioners is whether they are pros or semi-pros who take a lot of pictures for money and do not have time to work on each one using Aperture or Light room or PS.<br>

If a person says that he doesn't have a lot of money, is looking for great resolution, and doesn't mind working out CA, Vignetting, and distortions in the various programs, and s/he is pretty careful with the lenses, so doesn't need something that can handle a hard knock or dropping on concrete.....then when you go to http://www.photozone.de/ and start looking up the specs, its gonna be pretty hard to put out $620 for a 15-85, when with a little work you can get that amazing little 18-55 IS to give you actual photos in 8 x 10, 11 x 14, and 16 x 20 that you really can't tell from the 15-85 that cost you $450 more.<br>

I just wish questioners would not be afraid to ask what they really want to know, and maybe not be embarrassed that they either cannot afford L glass, or in the real life of printed photos in something less than 17 x 21, they really can't tell a difference.<br>

Zarathu</p>

[zarathu_uberroth]

<p>The problem with these questions is that the responder always assumes that the questioner has unlimited pockets. And maybe most people here do. Maybe most people here think nothing of picking up a $1200 lens. But most posters don't tell us that.<br>

If you want to pixel peep, then you can find all kinds of things that you won't see if you just print your prize photo of the mother horse and her colt in 11 x 14 or 16 x 20. <br>

Anther thing that is rarely mentioned by questioners is whether they are pros or semi-pros who take a lot of pictures for money and do not have time to work on each one using Aperture or Light room or PS.<br>

If a person says that he doesn't have a lot of money, is looking for great resolution, and doesn't mind working out CA, Vignetting, and distortions in the various programs, and s/he is pretty careful with the lenses, so doesn't need something that can handle a hard knock or dropping on concrete.....then when you go to http://www.photozone.de/ and start looking up the specs, its gonna be pretty hard to put out $620 for a 15-85, when with a little work you can get that amazing little 18-55 IS to give you actual photos in 8 x 10, 11 x 14, and 16 x 20 that you really can't tell from the 15-85 that cost you $450 more.<br>

I just wish questioners would not be afraid to ask what they really want to know, and maybe not be embarrassed that they either cannot afford L glass, or in the real life of printed photos in something less than 17 x 21, they really can't tell a difference.<br>

Zarathu</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Dear Zarathu,</p>

<p>The OP wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It came with the kit lens which gets the job done but I want a new lens that will really take advantage of the quality this camera has to offer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This would lead me to believe he has money to spend otherwise he wouldn't have posted the question but he would have continued shooting with the kitlens...</p>

<p>[The 15-18 has wider range, better build quality, USM. Whether that's worth $450 differs from one person to the next.]</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The problem with these questions is that the responder always assumes that the questioner has unlimited pockets</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I see no problem with these types of questions at all. And I do not see that there is evidence that responders always assume the OP has unlimited pockets . . .</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>“.....then when you go to <a href="http://www.photozone.de/" target="_blank">http://www.photozone.de/</a> and start looking up the specs, its gonna be pretty hard to put out $620 for a 15-85, when with a little work you can get that amazing little 18-55 IS to give you actual photos in 8 x 10, 11 x 14, and 16 x 20 that you really can't tell from the 15-85 that cost you $450 more.”</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm . . . not sure you can get the wide of 15mm or the length of 85mm out of the kit lens . . . not sure you can make more resolution out of what was not there in the first place and not sure you can knock out all CA in post production . . . but be that as it may . . . it seems to me a reasonable assumption that if an OP (in this particular case William) states that he is<br>

Ø <em>“Currently I am looking at the 15-85mm USM IS and wonder what users think about it.”</em><br>

And he already has the kit lens:<br>

Ø <em>“It came with the kit lens”</em><br>

<em></em>And he asks:<br>

Ø <em>“How about Tamron lens, are they any good? Which ones?”</em><br>

And also:<br>

Ø <em>“What lens do you recommend - considering that I want a well rounded lens, one I don't really have to change.”</em><br>

It’s my opinion that there is no problem at all suggesting lenses that I consider worthwhile, be they $2,000 or $200.</p>

<p>Certainly I think it is a little curious, if not useless advice, that one would suggest using the kit lens, when clearly the OP is asking for advice on a replacement for it . . . ? ? ?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just wish questioners would not be afraid to ask what they really want to know, and maybe not be embarrassed that they either cannot afford L glass, or in the real life of printed photos in something less than 17 x 21, they really can't tell a difference.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This comment seems to reek of a supercilious, presumptions of the financial position and the technical capacity of not only the OP, but by implication the respondents too . . . it might not have been meant that way but it sure comes across as being written with an elitist and condescending altitude . . . ? ? ?</p>

<p>The question appeared pretty clear to me . . . and it seems from the answers it was clear to others too . . .</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

[williamsquire]

<p>Hey another thing,</p>

<p>As a new photographer with DSLRs I am having issue with lowlight shots, so a lens that will nerf it a bit until I develop my technique would be great!</p>