Whats a good walk around lens for a 50D

[Dam355]

Hi, I am new on here and have just purchased a new 50d from Singapore when I was on holiday, it was a crazy price so I bought it. I had been using a eos 350d.

What would a good lens be for a general walkabout lens for the 50d. I have heard that the 50d needs a very good lens to get good resolution?

The 2 lens I am looking at is the Canon 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS and the 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS. I have tried them both today and they seem to be very good lens. Is it worth e extra few hundred bucks for the 17-85?

Thanks

Damien

[Gemini2261]

I think most ppl go for the 24-105mm L...just depends what you want to spend & the quality of the image you fancy

[WorkingClassHero]

If you can afford it, definitely go for the 24-105L. It's a superb lens. The 17-40L is pretty good too. That was the first lens I had when I got a DSLR (the 30D at that time)

[Gollum]

I have been using the EFS 17-85 IS f4-5.6 for 6 years now and its been a good general purpose lens. It was superseded a few years back by the EFS 15-85 IS f3.5-5.6 which has much better IQ across the range as well as being sightly faster.

For good reviews see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

I will be replacing this lens, hopefully this year, with a EF 24-70L f2.8 or the EF 24-105L IS f4. Canon have been systematically updating all of their existing L range with new optics (the improvement is very impressive) over the last few years. The rumour is that its the turn of these two lenses. Due to the tsunami in Japan (where all L lens come from) all new releases are delayed.

The way I see it with a crop body the 24-70 will give me 38-112 equivalent and being f2.8 its much faster than the 24-105 at f4. If I combine the 24-70 with my existing EFS 10-22, I think I have everything covered. The only disadvantage of the 24-70 is no IS in the current version. So if current rumours are true, the new version will have an IS and much improved IQ.

I'm happy to wait and see what comes when Canon is back to normal.

[Dam355]

Thanks for your suggestions. I would love to get an L lens but all the camera shops have said don't bother unless you are going to get a full frame Dslr as you would not notice any difference.

At the moment I am looking at the 18-135mm or 17-85mm due to the prices being fairly cheap. I am thinking in about 6 months I would like to get the 15-85mm or the f2.8 17-55mm.

Cheers

[Sarumann]

I guess it depends on what you want it for. A body is transient, lenses are pretty much forever. Dont forget to take the crop factor in to what you decide. I have the 24-70 on the front of my current body (ff) although it was pretty much permanantly atached to the previous crop bodies as well. Having said that, anytime I want landscapes I have used the 17-40 for the extra width.

Have a think about what you are going to use the camera for everyday, and then narrow your selection down from there. Everyone has a different idea of what is best as it is what suits their style and preferred subject matter.

Mark

[Gollum]

This was just posted last night.

http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/04/e...ent-published/

It looks like I won’t get my IS and there may be a reduction in IQ from the pervious version. When it comes to IQ, Canon has always been seen as the market leader so I will have to wait and see.

Dam355

While I’m not a professional photographer (don’t have the talent). Any Pro will tell you that the Lens is what matters not the body. The body will give you better ISO, FPS and Mega pixels it won’t give you a sharper image. The quality of the Optics is what determines the quality of the image.

The reason why I’m upgrading my EFS 17-85 now is that my ability to use the equipment has improved. I can now see the CA and softness in my shots and I’m having to work harder with PS to improve the image.

To quote a Pro, from The-Digital-Picture EF 24-70 review, but this applies to all Pro lenses:

"I'm often asked - can images shot with a consumer zoom lens be post-processed to result in images similar to 24-70 L images? The answer is: you can adjust contrast and saturation, but you cannot add missing detail."

When it comes to lens purchases, go for the best quality lens that you can afford and plan to keep it for as long as possible, 5 to 10 years.

[tarwoona]

i have a 24-105 on a 50D and wouldn't recommend anything else.

[bobt]

Thanks for your suggestions. I would love to get an L lens but all the camera shops have said don't bother unless you are going to get a full frame Dslr as you would not notice any difference.
Cheers

No offence, but you seem to have found some strange camera shops! I have the 40D and have various lenses including the 24-105L. There is no comparison between the cheaper lenses and the 25-105 - it produces simply stunning images. I have cheaper lenses ranging from the kit lens to mid-price zooms and the 24-105 is simply the best. Granted, you can achieve some great shots with a cheaper lens, but so tell you that there's no difference on a cropped sensor camera is simply bad advice. It's what's in front of the sensor that counts!

[unistudent1962]

It's what's in front of the sensor that counts!

Not a truer word has been said, BUT we need to address the OP's question.

He, along with most of us, have a budget to adhere to, and as such have to make compromises.
Most people start off with a kit quality lens of some sort or another.
I would assume that the OP has suggested 2 lenses within his price range, and wants advice/opinions as to which of these 2 lenses we would recommend.

There's absolutely no point dismissing the OP's options and suggesting L lenses as they are obviously beyond his current budget.
At the moment he has a fabulous Canon 50D body and needs a lens so he can get out there and start using it.
Should he wish to progress in this pastime he can upgrade to L qualily lenses once he has a better understanding of his needs, and has the budget to do so.

Those of us who wish to progress in this pastime may at some time upgrade to L quality lenses.

[Allan Ryan]

Now my 2c

1/ you don't need L glass.
2/ L glass will improve your pics over Most other cheaper lenses - regardless of full frame or cropped. - cropped sensors today are better res. than full frame use to be.....
3/ if your bugget can streach to a 24-105 you would find it to be a great lens for what your after.

Just to let you know I am in favour of the 24-105 ( have 50D & 24-105 ) but that doesn't mean you need one when starting out.

if bugget permits
I suggest you try one ( or similar 24-70 etc. ) in the shops, put it on the camera and take a couple of pics

as to a more affordable lens - i just brought the Nifty Fifty ( 50mm f/1.8 ) its very sharp and am having fun with it $129 - you could get one and use it while figuring out wich lens next
as above - For good reviews see: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/

[PH005]

I have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 that is on my 40D as a general walkabout . Highly recommended. Any L series would be a good investment. As Ryan above mentioned, if you get too confused, grab a nifty fifty for the time being .

[sonofcoco]

Yeah I agree, I added the 10-22mm to my kit while I had the 17-85mm and used it more often as the quality was better (within the range of course). Then I got rid of the 17-85 and added the 24-70mm. There's quite a difference on the 40D!

Given you've indicated you're not looking at L lenses at the moment though, the 17-85mm wasn't a bad lens. I got it with my 40D when I bought it.

[gje38752]

I started off with kit lens on a 50D, got past that pretty quickly, I went through exactly what faces you and ended up with 15=85. I have never regretted it, nice and wide, and reasonable length. A lot better than the 17=85. Have a look at the reviews on the Digital Picture.com gives you everything you need.
Happy shooting.

[Dam355]

Thanks for all your help.

I have the nifty fifty and it is the best lens for the price I have used. Every one should have one.

I have ended up getting the 18-135mm as it was very cheap and a big upgrade from the lens I was using. I will get the 24-105L some time this year or at least an L type lens of some description.

Thanks again.

[Dam355]

Ok I have been using the 18-135mm and it is a fairly good starter lens, but i have noticed the the edges get a bit darker specially when you have got blue sky in the pics. You can crop it out and looks good.

I have tried out the 24-105mm and it is a very nice lens. My wife is off to Singapore next week so i might get the lens over there as i can get it for $960. It is a grey lens but i can send it back to my friends over there if it breaks which i would not think it would being an L.

Cheers.

[Kerry]

I picked up the 24-105L in Phnom Penh for around that price a couple of months back and haven't regretted my decision for one minute....I love that lens on my 50D!!

[davearnold]

You will not regret getting the 24-105, was my favourite lens (practically lived on my camera) until it recently died ( IS can fail on older versions) , hope to get it fixed soon.

Cheers Dave

[Tannin]

I cannot believe how many people are recommending the 24-105 as a "walk around" lens for the 50D! This is crazy!

Now don't get me wrong, it is an excellent lens - I own one myself and like it a lot, but it is NOT a walk-around lens as that term is commonly understood - i.e., a lens good for most general-purpose uses. Excellent lens that it is, it simply isn't wide enough to be in the zone for prime-time walkaround duties. In fact, it's even less capable than it looks, as the barrel distortion at 24m is quite bad, especially for an L Series lens. So in reality, you might do better to think of it as a superb 28-105 with a free medium-quality 24-28 thown in.

Many people, probably most people, find 24mm on a 1.6 crop body way too long for general-purpose use. I cope with that limitation by carrying two bodies, the other has a 10-22 on it, so for me the 24mm wide end isn't a problem. But with a single body, you will almost certainly be better served by ... well, by almost anything, even an 18-55 has a lot to be said for it if you are in an even moderately tight place.

Da355, I reckon your best bet is to go with a nice third-party lens, such as the Sigma 17-70, or else save up and go for a 15-85.

[Scotty72]

I cannot believe how many people are recommending the 24-105 as a "walk around" lens for the 50D! This is crazy!

Now don't get me wrong, it is an excellent lens - I own one myself and like it a lot, but it is NOT a walk-around lens as that term is commonly understood - i.e., a lens good for most general-purpose uses. Excellent lens that it is, it simply isn't wide enough to be in the zone for prime-time walkaround duties. In fact, it's even less capable than it looks, as the barrel distortion at 24m is quite bad, especially for an L Series lens. So in reality, you might do better to think of it as a superb 28-105 with a free medium-quality 24-28 thown in.

Many people, probably most people, find 24mm on a 1.6 crop body way too long for general-purpose use. I cope with that limitation by carrying two bodies, the other has a 10-22 on it, so for me the 24mm wide end isn't a problem. But with a single body, you will almost certainly be better served by ... well, by almost anything, even an 18-55 has a lot to be said for it if you are in an even moderately tight place.

Da355, I reckon your best bet is to go with a nice third-party lens, such as the Sigma 17-70, or else save up and go for a 15-85.

I actually agree.

It is a good lens - excellent but, it does distort at or near 24mm (take an ocean shot at 24 with it then, note the horizon - not bad but, noticeable).

If you are going around to take pictures of people or things in the middle distance, it is great.

It is near - useless for parties or street scenes - where you will almost certainly need <24 mm on a crop camera.

If, by walk around, you mean to walk around taking pictures of buildings you are standing in front of, close ups of people with scenary in the background or parties etc... A 10-20 is far more useful.