New Walk about lens.

Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
Hi all, im looking for a good walkabout lens for my 450D. Im looking at this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zo...TF8&coliid=I1XLJJAAX0HKOI&colid=34WC5X0M2R0WD

What do you think?

TBH, seems utterly useless as a walk about lens on a crop camera. I would look more for something like the Canon 15-85 (The Nikon version is razor sharp, solidly built, super light and 24mm FF equivalent makes a wonderful walkabout, I don't know if the canon version is as good). Alternatively either a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Both are great general purpose walkabout wide-to-normal lenses.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2007
Posts
10,492
Location
Hants
sigma 18-50 2.8 macro (ignore the macro term, its just got a lower min focus distance). had 2 copies over a couple of years and both have been super sharp and lovely and contrasty.
 

OG

OG

Associate
Joined
15 Feb 2007
Posts
698
I would want something seriously wider as a walkabout, as others have said Tamron 17-50 is pretty dam good
 

mrk

mrk

Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
100,011
Location
South Coast
17mm is certainly wide enough but what is your budget?

If it''s outdoors walkabout then you could get an Ultrawide AND a 50mm 1.8mkII, the 50 will cover the portrait and DOF requirements and the ultrawide will give your street/environment shots a new viewpoint.

50mm 2nd hand can be had around £50 :p

The 15-85 Canon is very sharp and very high quality optics wise, it compares easily with the L lens in terms of sharpness, flare, CA and colour. But it does cost a considerable amount more than the 28-135 :p
 
Soldato
Joined
10 Jul 2008
Posts
7,684
You can discuss walkabout lenses until you are blue in the face. Some people prefer to carry around bag full of prime lenses (fixed focus lenses incase OP is not familiar). i.e. 20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, 200mm. Others prefer lenses biast towards the longer end of focal range like the 28-135mm. That's a good lens to be honest. I've used one and it was a really nice lens for walkabout. Having a walkabout lens that goes from 10mm - 200mm simply does not exist, and would defeat the purpose of an interchangeable lens system. If you think/find you take shots within the range of 17-50mm, then you could look at:

Canon Kit Lens IS version
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 18-50mm macro f/2.8 (discontinued/can't buy new anymore I don't think)
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

(VC = Tamron Image stabilisation, OS = Sigma image stabilisation, IS = Canon Image stabilisation)

They go up in price as you go down the list, but not necessarily in quality. For example, the Tamron f/2.8 non vc is widely considered to be the best walkabout lens for crop camera bodies in terms of bang per buck, in that it is affordable and yet tac sharp for the money, rivaling even the Canon 17-55mm. Most people will compare to the Canon since it is hugely expensive and generally considered to be of L glass image quality.

Having said the above, I had a copy of the Tamron non VC and it was awful. Literally, awful. I sent it straigh back to the seller and to be honest, I found the whine of the focus mechanism very annoying. It's very loud in operation, more so than any of the rivals in the above list and can intrude and draw attention at certain situations.

The Tamron non VC is generally considered to be less sharp than the non VC, and people find this unacceptable given the added price so it is not a popular lens at all.

The Tamron lenses do feel cheap in build, but most find they hold up ok.

The Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC Macro is a good lens and often overlooked due to the popularity of the Tamron. Its zoom ring rotates the same way as Canon lenses do (i.e. clockwise zooms out) which is nice not to have to re-learn/re-teach yourself which you tend to do instinctively if you are coming from a Canon background. The build is very high quality and better than the Canon (read why below) and it also features the added benefit of macro functionality with a very close MFD. Not a full on macro lens, but still pretty handy to be able to never have to worry about stepping back to achieve focus as sometimes you can nearly be touching the front element on a plant and it will still focus.
This lens also has an issue though...it's made by Sigma. The quality control seems to be just as much a lottery as with other 3rd party lenses like Tamron, although people do still have issues with Canon lenses to be fair. I went through 2 copies before finding one that was good. First had a decentering issue, and second backfocused. Depending on copy and focal range, it matches the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 in Image quality (IQ) and performance, other than to say the Sigma is built better and not noisy in AF operation.

The newish (out about a year ago) Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS is Sigma's replacement for the 18-50mm lenses and introduces OS. This lens is MASSIVELY overlooked, as people at this price point start to realize that they are not that far away from the price of the Canon 17-50, which is commonly perceived to be the holy grail of walkabout lenses on crop. However, the Sigma 17-50mm OS is a fantastic lens. It just doesn't have much support mainly due to the success of the Canon. This lens OUT PERFORMS the Canon in terms of center frame IQ quite noticeably. It is built better, lighter and costs still a couple of hundred pounds less. At this price point though, we are talking a commitment and really a top end piece of glass for crop.

So why shouldn't you buy the Canon and spend £750 on a piece of Canon non L glass? Well you can. It's just that you might want to consider some of the above 3rd party lenses for bang per buck. If you do however want the best, and you can afford it, and you need top IQ WITH image stabilisation in your arsenal, then my advice is to decide what is most important to you. If you MUST have the absolute quickest AF, and do not mind the extra weight and prefer overall entire frame sharpness and contrast, get the Canon 17-50mm f/2.8 IS. If you prefer to save a couple of hundred and want better build, slightly lighter/smaller lens, acceptable AF, better center sharpness and 3 year UK warranty, get the Sigma 17-50mm OS. The Canon's build is not that bad, it's just a lot of money for a non L glass lens and it has an issue with dust getting inside. A lot of people have this problem with this lens.

There are also Tokina lenses to look into which I have no experience of. Really, if you are upgrading you need to ask why am I upgrading. What to I require that will aid taking better pictures. Look at whether IS would help you and your style of shots. Do you need better IQ? Budget. What focal range suits. They are the main key things. You can have the best setup worth thousands, but if a walk about lens that is longer gets the shot and a 17-55 range lens doesn't, it's worth nothing.

Hope this helps. Sorry it's long and I typed it quick without checking spelling.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
393
Location
S/E Kent
I'd like to add the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS HSM to the mix there. I bought mine with my 60D, but I was also looking at the Canon 15-85 as well. It's fast, quiet and very sharp, and costs around £340, and is on my 60D the majority of time.

If you want a couple of sample shots, take a peek at these...

17mm - f2.8 - 1/2500sec - ISO 100


IMG_3015.jpg by GSpix, on Flickr

25mm - f9 - 1/60sec - ISO 100


IMG_3065.jpg by GSpix, on Flickr
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
32,615
sorry to be a pain but does anyone have any comments on the tamron 10-24

Very much depends on what you like to do. I love going on a walk about with a 10-20mm lens because it allows very dramatic and dynamic photographs when used correctly. A good travel set up for me and many people consists of a 10-20mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 (or 70-300 f/5.6 for lightweight purposes) and throw in a fast normal prime (35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4).


At 24mm at 10-24 on a crop body allows a 36mm FF equivalent on the tele end which is enough to capture plenty of street scenes and group shots.
However, these super wide angles are very challenging to use and are definitely not for beginners. They are much harder than telephotos to properly use to capture high quality shots.
Most of the people who use a 17-50 or 18-135mm type lens do so because they are far easier to use. But also tend to make boring photos. Everywhere between 24-70mm is pretty boring on crop (which is funny because I just purchased a very expensive 24-70mm f/2.8, but that has different uses) as a general walk about lens, neither wide nor tele.

If you are not sure of a 10-24 then something like a 15-85 is interesting. I have a Nikon 16-85mm I use for going lightweight and 90% of the photos are either at 16mm or 85mm. Thus in the future I will probably replace my 16-85 walk about lens for 2 primes (the 85mm is easy, Nikon don't have a viable 14/16mm prime lens yet).
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
6,991
Location
Gloucester UK
Lens choice will depend on what the OP likes to shoot? A standard walkaround lens is generally in the 17-50 area on a crop and the Tamron non VC is a great lens for the money. I can't remember the last time I used mine though... I'm far more likely to take a 50mm or 85mm prime with me as a walk around, heck I'll take the 70-200 before the 17-50.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
15 Oct 2005
Posts
447
Location
Nottingham
Thanks guys,

mrk - i would probably spend around 250-300 pounds on this lens.

Biggus - i love those pics, they look awsome.

I would love a wide angle lens, 17mm is plenty. But i would like something really sharp. f2.8 looks good if i can get something for around 300 pounds. I take a lot of out doors (nature shots), so wide but also if i need to take a photo up close e.g. animals, birds, people (portrates etc) id like a lens that can do that to.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Apr 2008
Posts
1,471
Location
Berks+Powys
Disclaimer: I own about 80 lens or so, from 1900 to modern time ;)

My "good weather" lens is the Sigma 18-200 f3.5-f6.3(?). Its light, and /if the weather is good/ it's hard to beat for range vs weight. It was probably the first AF lens I bought, and despite the complains (mostly barel distortion, to be expected, and easy to post process), I still use it, because over the years, it still deliver the images when used in the right conditions.

The alternative is the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 ex -- my copy works very well, as long as you know how to use it! Typically, it is afocal, so you can do the AF lock at 50mm, zoom "out" and frame, then shoot. The AF is a LOT better when used at 50mm. I see it clearly because I use a prism focus screen.

But, all in all, when it comes down to it, what more or less stays permanently on the camera is a Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f2.4. IMO, unbeatable for size vs quality vs focus distance!
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Jan 2007
Posts
8,944
Location
Manchester
Thanks guys,

mrk - i would probably spend around 250-300 pounds on this lens.

Biggus - i love those pics, they look awsome.

I would love a wide angle lens, 17mm is plenty. But i would like something really sharp. f2.8 looks good if i can get something for around 300 pounds. I take a lot of out doors (nature shots), so wide but also if i need to take a photo up close e.g. animals, birds, people (portrates etc) id like a lens that can do that to.

Based on that the non-VC Tamron 17-50 sounds like it fits the bill. The AF noise is indeed louder than most but it's really not that bad. I tend to keep mine at f/4 outdoors just because it's a tad sharper than wide open but even at f/2.8 I was surprised at how good it is.

These are all at f/2.8 if I remember rightly, straight out of the camera.

20110601img2525.jpg


20110601img2529.jpg


20110601img2528.jpg


Having said that though, the lens I "walk about" with the most is the 50mm 1.8 mk2.
 
Back
Top Bottom