Walk around Lens General Purpose/street/landscape

[Roosta]

Looking to add to my lens collection, and upgrade from the kit 17-85 EF-S IS USM. I'm chasing a lens that I can use mainly for sea/landscape, and also leave on camera when out 4WDriving. Looking at either Tamrom SP AF17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] and or Sigma Lens 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM, not with holding the Canon Lens 17-55mm EF-S f/2.8 IS USM. Can anyboby that has the Tamron or used the Tamron, tell me what the difference between the "Tri Axial VR and Non VR" is like, considering its a small and light weight lens. Is it needed (Is it like Canon's IS) I can only guess as to yes..

BUT.

I am wondering if I am going to take the bubget to the Canon lens, should I go for the Canon Lens 24-70mm EF f/2.8L USM or the older 28-70 if I can find one and also in that range the Canon Lens 24-105 EF f/4L IS USM. These two will cover up-to the zoom range where my 70-200 comes in at.

If any body has gone down this road before, your input would be muchly appreciated, any sample pics taken would also be great.

Any other susgestions you have would be great, as I have only recently switched to CANON, for Olympus.

[ZedEx]

Yep, the 17-50 Tamron is a great lens, will not disappoint. I had the non-VC version (non-IS) which was fine. I've never found a huge use for image stabilizers anyway. Very sharp, very compact
Don't look at a the 24-70 f2.8. They are both totally different focal lengths. The 24-70 is designed for full frame Canon cameras like the 5D and 1Ds series, and does not offer a good 'general purpose' zoom range on a crop sensor camera. Same with the 24-105, unless you're going to pair it with a 10-22mm lens as well. Either way, there are better (and MUCH cheaper) options like the tamron

[Roosta]

Thanks Zed, Didn't take sensor size into consideration. Do you know of a lens that would suit, from say 17-20 odd to 85-100 odd that would suit APS-C ?????.
But nice to hear my firat choice might be a wise choice.

[ZedEx]

Just get the Tamron

[etherial]

It depends on what is more important to you. Do you want a lens with a good range or do you prefer a wider lens? Where are you likely to shoot most, at the 17 or 25mm or 60-90mm? I went with the 24-105 (on a crop sensor) and I find it the perfect walkaround lens. I know others with have different opinions but for me it is wide enough for most shots and also has the flexibility of being long enough when I need some zoom. If I need to go wider, then I go to my 10-22mm.

If 24mm is wide enough for you, then you should consider the 24-70/2.8. Again horses for courses, do you need f2.8 or not? For me the answer was no and I preferred to go for the longer 24-105/4.

The 17-50 is ok, but if you like to be able to shoot at 100mm a lot like I do, it will piss you off! 50mm isn't much reach. If you like doing wide stuff, chances are the you will crave something wider than 17mm on a crop body anyway.

I can't give you the straight up answer as there is plenty to weigh up, but DON'T 'Just get the Tamron" without fully considering your options.

[etherial]

I just remembered you have the 17-85mm, which end of this to you find yourself at most? That will help determine which way you should go.

[geeti]

I have the tamron 17-50mm non-VR... Honestly I can't say how good it is compared to the kit lens, as I never tried one. Most of the photos I took in lowlight were candid shots, so I don't think the VR would benefit me.

There's always the tripod of course if u need a steady shot, and I don't mind using high isos. With the same budget you could either get a vr tamron or a non-vr + a tripod.

You might also want to check out the sigma 17-70mm OS HSM f2.8-4, it is around the same price and got some pretty good reviews too (however I question whether it really is what u'd call an upgrade from the 17-85 IS USM). I think if u don't take lowlight candid shots, u'd better off with the sigma (there's always the nifty fifty for lowlight portraits anyway). I don't have the sigma though, so I can't be of any help with its performance.

Edit: never mind the sigma, I just noticed you've got 70-200 f/2.8L... I think the sigma would be way out of league to include as ur gear.

Just curious though, what's from the 17-85 u find not enough?

[ZedEx]

My main point for the OP 'just getting the Tamron' was that it was to be mainly used for land and seascapes, as per his original post. In this case, it would be the better of the lenses than something wide that was not directly made for an aps-c body. I too know of a few people using the 10-22 and 24-105 combo (which I suggested in my other post) however for a combination like this we're talking series money.
At the end of the day, it's going to be a choice of 'do i want wide, ultra wide or telelfoto'. If you're out 4wding, I'm not sure i'd be comfortable changing lenses in such an environment (dusty, possibly) so best to find something you're comfortable to leave on 90% of the time.

I just remembered you have the 17-85mm, which end of this to you find yourself at most? That will help determine which way you should go.

[RaoulIsidro]

My current walk around lens for urban use for my Canon 1.6x cropped sensor camera body is the EF 16-35mm f2.8.
For my Full Frame camera body, it is currently the 28-105mm f3.5-4.5, a very old lens but an excellent copy from the film era. I have a 24-70mm f2.8, but to my needs, it is big, bulky and heavy to be lugged around as a walk around lens, specially in rough urban areas where these expensive lenses are attractive to strange fellows.
Walk around lenses tend to be dictated by your needs rather than being an all encompassing one stop shop solution. My urban needs are different from your 4WD adventures, so the gears would be varied in specifications.
And they also change with situations, and current preferences.
The other day, I used a Nikkor 35mm f1.8 G lens on a Nikon cropped sensor camera, because it felt fun to bring to a garden party.

Here is a sample of a walk around photo I took.
It was taken on a 5DMk1 with a very old lens, EF 17-35mm f2.8.
The wharf on the left is the Finger Wharf apartments where Russel Crowe and John Laws live. The ships on the right are the HMAS Sydney (FFG 03) and Canberra (FFG 02). The boys are some of the "Breakfast Club" of Harry's Cafe De Wheels (meat pie stand).

[Renae]

I have had the Tamron 17-50 non VC and it was an awesome lens. Very sharp & the 2.8 came in really handy too for lower light situations. It was a lovely sharp lens & I didn't miss IS at all. I now have the 10-22 & 24-105 combo. I find the 24-105 is a very handy general purpose lens & I like the extra reach but if land/seascapes are your main thing then I think the Tamron is defininitely the way to go (& a helluva lot cheaper too!)

[Roosta]

Dont really see the clarity in the shots, there was earlier thread on the old 15-85 and the new 17-85 Vs. Most people saying the same as me, just dosen't seem to cut it. I did look at the Sigma, I think from memory that it also had a SO CALLED MICRO on it "Sigma Lens 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG Macro (filter diameter 82mm)" as etherial asked, I tend to use the higher end of the zoom, so a 24 to 70-85-100ish would be good and the Canon offers this for the full frame cameras in one of two lens as above mentioned. So not sure. Not being used for traditional portrait shooting, low light a must, landscapes, so the F2.8 or solid F4.

[Roosta]

At the end of the day, it's going to be a choice of 'do i want wide, ultra wide or telelfoto'. If you're out 4wding, I'm not sure i'd be comfortable changing lenses in such an environment (dusty, possibly) so best to find something you're comfortable to leave on 90% of the time.

Cheers, yeap, considered the lens changing and landscape issue, Yes the two lenses would be great, but I think I should be able to get the width with the 24, and yes the 17 would be better, but I do like the function of deeper zoom, especially when driving. So thanks for your feedback.

[Roosta]

.

Edit: never mind the sigma, I just noticed you've got 70-200 f/2.8L... I think the sigma would be way out of league to include as ur gear.

Just curious though, what's from the 17-85 u find not enough?

Spolit with the F2.8 on the 70-200, it puts things into perspective with fast glass compaired to the 17-85. Wont go backwards for quality glass nowadays, since changing from my Olympus setup that had all 3.5+ glass to the Canon gear I now have.

[etherial]

Gday, if you want a walkaround with the longer end, then you can't go past the 24-105/4 IS. There is a decent review of it by another AP member here. I love mine and when I go walkabout it is just about always on the camera (probably too much!). If you look at most of my general shots posted on AP, they will likely be with that lens.

Not sure about your budget, I managed to pick mine up near new for around $1000.

[Roosta]

Thanks Raoul, yes I hear what you are saying, I am trying to get the best of both worlds, be seeing the feedback, I'm intrested in trying the Canon Lens 24-105 EF f/4L IS USM, it will cover and not leave a gap between lens for me, than maybe down the line buy a 10 - ??? lens for very low light slow speed shooting. But the Sigma and Tamron lens together are about the same price as Canon, so that may also be a option. Will have to try to find some lenses here in Perth and have a play....

Cheers..

[Roosta]

Yeap, will look at that, was just replying to Raoul, the 24 -70 F4 also sounds great, but the longer depth of zoom, it going to give me great coverage.

Thanks again.

How much of the shot do you loose, is the 7D same sensor as the 50D ??

[etherial]

Yes the 7D and 50D are the same crop factor of 1.6x. I don't really think about it, I have my 10-22 for wide stuff, my 24-105 for general, and the 70-200 for longer zoom work plus 1.4x tele if I want to get to 300mm. So I have 10-300mm covered nicely and more importantly lenses that suit my shooting style meaning not too many changes.

I do love having the 105mm long end, as you have some reasonable reach to catch that odd bit of wildlife should the need arise. If I need wider, I nearly always have the time to change to the 10-22, landscapes don't move that quickly.

Don't get caught up in effective focal length and all that jazz unless you are seriously looking to go full frame.

[Roosta]

Thanks Renae, you are making it all the more harder to choose, yes to both, landscape the Tamron, GP the Canon.

[Roosta]

Thanks again, have noticed there is a Sigma in the 17-70 range, would like a lens that will cover up to 70, so the 105 would be ideal, and like you say, landscapes dont tend to be to quick on their feet.

Thanks again.