What lens....

[MasterOfRoc]

Looking for a semi decent landscape/portrait lens for my 7d, in the ballpark of up to $500 or so

[bricat]

I have the canon 15-85 lens which if purchased from the web costs just under $600. Maybe hard to get a lens for both your subjects at that price or even any price. cheers Brian

[unistudent1962]

What are you using now?

[MasterOfRoc]

just the 18-55 that come with my first camera

[wmvaux]

I bought a Tokina AT-X 116 Pro DX AF 11-16mm f2.8 II with a Nikon mount for under $500, they have gone up since, but with postage you can get one for around $530 with a canon mount. Excellent reviews and I can highly recommend it. A friend of mine who has a Canon 10-22mm 3.5 said he would get one if he didn't have his.

[unistudent1962]

just the 18-55 that come with my first camera

The next up the quality chain in the Canon range are the EF-S 15-85 or the EF-S 17-50 f2.8, neither of which you'll get for $500 even if you're willing to buy grey.

The Sigma and Tamron 17-50 f2.8s get a lot of good reviews as well, and are often recommended as good upgrades from the kit lens. They're also closer in price to your budget.

[Brian500au]

You would be better to work out what is more important to you at this stage - either landscape or portrait as the two are ideally not the same lens. Once you decide this then you can decide if you want primes or zooms. Both have their places and price range.

[unistudent1962]

either landscape or portrait as the two are ideally not the same lens.

Really?

Landscapes can be captured with just about any lens you choose, it just depends on how you want the landscape represented.

The 18-55 the OP is currently using is 32 (the classic 35mm equivalent WA lens was 28mm) to 88 (the classic 35mm equivalent H&S portrait lens was 85mm), so upgrading to a better quality lens with similar range would seem to be a logical purchase, particularly with a $500 budget.

[Brian500au]

Really?

Landscapes can be captured with just about any lens you choose, it just depends on how you want the landscape represented.

The 18-55 the OP is currently using is 32 (the classic 35mm equivalent WA lens was 28mm) to 88 (the classic 35mm equivalent H&S portrait lens was 85mm), so upgrading to a better quality lens with similar range would seem to be a logical purchase, particularly with a $500 budget.

A focal length of 18-55 is 18-55 on any size sensor, it is the FOV that is different. I don't disagree with you when you state landscapes can be captured with just about any lens you choose, the same can be said for portraiture. Ideally the FL are not the same lens (but that does mean they cannot be).

[ameerat42]

Looking for a semi decent landscape/portrait lens for my 7d, in the ballpark of up to $500 or so

Well, I hope you really mean something "decent".

Anyway, what do you find wanting in your current setup? What sort of - ie, level of photography, do you want to do?

Such answers may help focus the replies away from opinionative ping-pong and semantic sparring back to photography,
and perhaps a comprehensive answer for you.

Am.

[William W]

You already have a semi-decent lens that you can use for Portraits and also for Landscapes.

If you can identify that which you would like to achieve, but cannot achieve with your 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 lens - then please let us know.

BUT - if you cannot point to things that you cannot do at the moment: then it's my opinion that you are wasting money buying a similar replacement lens or any another lens.

The EF-S 18 to 55 F/3.5~5.6 in all its variants is an exceptionally good value for money lens which makes good photos - even the first non-IS version is good.


WW

[CandidTown]

Why don't you keep your 18-55 lens for your landscapes. You will usually shoot them at maybe f9-f11 and at that aperture the image quality is actually quite "decent"...
then for 120$ get yourself a 50mmf1.8 prime for your portraits which at f2.0 has a VERY "decent" IQ adn a great background blur.
Done...
save yourself 400$ until such time that you will learn and experience for yourself the limitations of your current lens, especially for portraits, and decide for yourself whether you really need an upgrade or not.
After your 5000th shot you will no longer need to ask questions on the forum. You will know exactly what you want.

[Abeniston]

Personally I would get 2 lenses as I think it's going to be hard to get the best out of a single lens doing two things that really are at the opposite end of the scale. If you have to go one, I would go the Sigma 10-20mm. Using it on the croped frame it would be 1.5x, that's 15-30mm. I would then correct the barrel roll in lightroom. Especially for the portrait shots. Your bokeh isn't going to be as good compared to the 50mm which is an excellent lens for portraits.

[Milan Deo]

I recently go a Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS HSM lens for my 600D and I'm really impressed with it. It's a great upgrade from the standard 18-55 kit lens and good value for your money, I've read a handful of people complaining of a "loose" lens hood and slight fall off on the edges at 2.8 however the one I have doesn't seam to have any issues with either so it might have been just their unit. Photozone also gave it a great review on the lens for APS-C DSLR's.

Heres an image at 50mm F2.8

and here is the 100% centre crop

I know the pics arent perfect, I just whipped out the camera thought it might help you decide

- - - Updated - - -

Okay this might be a better representation

At 17mm F2.8

100% crop

[wmvaux]

The Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 you can get for around $430 on ebay at the moment brand new. I have bought all my lenses online via eBay and have been very happy. I think this would fit your needs very well.

[dcurry]

I've spent a fair bit of money "collecting" lenses and looking at old shots, the old 18-55 I gave to my sister holds its own. If your on a budget, keep it,

Dave

[Morgo]

I have the Tokina 11-16 for landscape, mostly astro, on the 7D which does a good job. Never used it as a portrait lens though.

[MasterOfRoc]

Thanks again for all the input...

My 18-55 finally threw in the towel, The Motor seems to have seized.

I agree with many here too, that it does hold its own for a lens that sells for $100 used


I can get my hands on an "As new" 18-55 for just $50, and I think its well worth it...

You have an hour to talk me out of it haha.

[William W]

. . . I can get my hands on an "As new" 18-55 for just $50, and I think its well worth it...

You have an hour to talk me out of it haha.

Which one? There are several: and although I stand by my comment that the first EF-S 18 to 55 model was "good" - I would not pay $50.00 today, for that version of the lens.

WW

[MasterOfRoc]

Canon 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS II + Hoya 58mm HD UV