Lens for Canon 60D

[Trobdang]

Hi, I am looking to upgrade my lens for a Canon 60D....At the moment I have the usual beginner kit lenses 18-55 & 55-250 both Ef-s IS II.... I am wading my way through the technicall jargon and I am looking at a midrange maybe around 28-70mm we travel a bit and do a lot of walking and I want something that can take a close shot as well as far away without changing lenses, I am looking for some advice on some of the best options please...
price range could be around $200-400 give and take

[Cricket]

Canon have a 18-200mm zoom lens that is good for everyday use

[ameerat42]

But to add a caution to Cricket's helpful suggestion, be aware that large range zoom lenses can have zones
where performance is not good. I'm NOT going against that particular lens, but just saying. Whatever you look at,
be sure to look at the reviews for it.

Going on your original spec of "28-70", there are three candidates for your consideration from Σ, which you will find
on this page. (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/standard-lenses) My first thought was for the 17-70 Macro there.

17-70mm F2.8-4 DC Macro (OS)* HSM | C:
For this lens be aware that Macro just means ~1:3 image reproduction, ie, a handy "close-up" on an "everyday" midrange.
NOTE ALSO that it is designed for APSC cameras (such as yours) only. - That's what DC means. It also has Ootical Stabilistaion for Canon:)

24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM:
This lens will suit either APSC or FF (Full Frame) cameras - what the DG means. But it lacks OS and "Macro".

24-105mm F4 DG (OS)* HSM | A:
This lens is also good for FF, AND it has OS, as well as a little more telephoto range, but it has a narrower FOV
(Field of View) at the wide end. Again, no "Macro".

There are others available, but that'll do from me.

Am.

[John King]

I have to agree with Am about super zooms for ILCs, they need to be approached with an understanding that any lens with greater than about 5x zoom ratio will be optically compromised. Really doesn't matter who makes it. Prosumer P&S cameras manage it better because everything can be optimised.

There is a good reason why most high quality zooms are around the 3x mark ... ;)

[bobt]

24-105mm F4 DG (OS)* HSM | A:
This lens is also good for FF, AND it has OS, as well as a little more telephoto range, but it has a narrower FOV
(Field of View) at the wide end. Again, no "Macro".
Am.


I'd go for this one ... I have it permanently fixed to my camera as it's a great all round lens (are there any square ones?)

Gets the nod from most photo sites as one of the best choices.

[Trobdang]

Thanks to all for your suggestions, sorry it has taken me so long to answer....
Would the 18-200 always need a tripod ??? And I also would worry about optical loss with this one too.....
Am you have fed me some new information for me to process (this being a good thing) and I have had a look at the link you put in, but as I am just a mere beginner with NO understanding and I will have to do some further head banging study on all of these lenses......And I will understand in the end....meanwhile always learning with what I have on hand ...
:lol2:Thanks again...

[ameerat42]

It's got IS, so probably not. Here's a review, so have a GOOD READ:nod:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-18-200-3p5-5p6-is-c16

(My personal opinion: I wouldn't get it, as I'd want "more" than 7/10 image quality.)

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, in particular, read the Pros and Cons on the last page...

[John King]

I would also carefully study the SLRGear review of both versions of this lens. Here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/nikon/18-200mm-f3.5-5.6g-if-ed-vr-ii-dx-af-s-nikkor/review/

Personally, after a friend's experience with this lens on his D300, there is no way I would recommend it ... sorry :(.

[Mark L]

24-105mm F4 DG (OS)* HSM |A

I'd go for this one ... I have it permanently fixed to my camera as it's a great all round lens (are there any square ones?)

Gets the nod from most photo sites as one of the best choices.
Sounds like some good real world user advise there.:)
If it works it works and for what you want I don't think "5x zoom ratio will be optically compromised" will actually be a major problem.

[JJM]

What's your reasoning behind wanting another zoom lens with a range that is essentially covered by your current lenses?

Personally I'd be considering a 50mm F1.8 or another fast prime lens

[John King]

I have to agree with Am about super zooms for ILCs, they need to be approached with an understanding that any lens with greater than about 5x zoom ratio will be optically compromised. Really doesn't matter who makes it. Prosumer P&S cameras manage it better because everything can be optimised.

There is a good reason why most high quality zooms are around the 3x mark ... ;)

Whoops ... wrong lens, sorry :Doh:. However, super zooms are generally suspect, no matter who makes them.

[EDIT]

And I replied to the wrong one of my posts ... Still asleep, I guess - double :Doh: ...

[End edit

[ameerat42]

REMINDER: It's Canon lenses we're talking about, not Nikon:D

[Trobdang]

JJM my reasoning is so I don't have to change lenses, I spend a lot of time at the beach (hence sand problems) and we do a lot of walking and I often see things to photograph closely and then you might get say a waterfall and if I dont have to change lenses it would be a huge advantage......

Thanks again for all suggestions, I have borrowed an 18-135 today whilst I like the advantage of both ends of the scale I felt the close up capability not as good as my 18-55 so am liking the idea of the 17-70mm....... but I will be studying more on this subject and the links you have all sent are wonderful......
Where one has an advantage in one area another has advantage elsewhere......each day I understand more :lol:

[kangarooart]

I agree 24-105 is a good allround lens when the price budget you have is taken into account.
However, remember that with the price range and all round capability you might have to slightly compromise with the low light performance.

regards
Josh

[Gribbles]

I've got the Canon 18-200 on my 60D.
I purchased it to be used as a travel lens, and it wasn't anywhere near as expensive as better lenses.
I'm just a beginner - still, but it suits my needs at the moment.
I've got a couple of other lenses used for other purposes, but the 18-200 sits on the camera most of the time.

Generally don't need a tripod, unless you're going for longer exposure shots, like waterfalls.

[spootz01]

24-105 looks to be fantastic lens (is definitely on my shopping list), but it is well over the budget you mentioned initially. I have the Sigma 18-250 f3.5-6.3 and its a really good all-in-one lens plus its only about $549 depending on where you look. That or the Tamron 16-300, although your looking at about an extra $200 for that.

Just some options to have a think about.