Reading mode: Light Dark

Walk about lens for 50D

Go to last post
J

jimbrobb

Leading Member
Messages
838
Reaction score
113
Location
UK
Having seen the review of the 17-85 IS lens with this camera it seems a bit lacking.

What walk-about lens would you recomend? With IS? (not too expensive!)

Thanks
Jim
 
I kept the kit lens 28-135mm on til I got the Sigma 30mm f1.4. Now that stays on the camera most of the time unless I need a specific lens. I find the foot zoom adequate for most situations, and has made me rethink how I take pictures. Nice sharp prime and lighter than most medium teles. It's all down to preference and what you can live with. I like not carrying a lot of lenses unless I have to...more mobility and the ability to carry a very small bag.

The Sigma is great for low light situations and for use where a flash is not possible.

Good luck and happy hunting!

Jerry
 
A lot depends on how/what you like to shoot.

A lot of people swear by the 17-55 2.8 - although that may not fit in the "not too expensive" category. But obviously that's not a great lens for somebody who shoots long a lot.

I like the 28-135, but do wish it had a bit more of a short end.
 
Look into the Tamron long zooms - with or w/o stabilization. I don't think you need IS with the capability today for low-noise high ISOs. Nice to have both, but not essential.

I use the Tamron 18-250 on my 40D and love it. It also is not expensive, so it meets your criteria and more.

DKD
 
For the very demanding sensor and fast fps quite only the best is good enough. The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is at the minimum of IQ of the lens needed. Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is an alternative, but the focus drive will not get everything out of the fast fps (as I experienced on the 40D).

I think, if somebody couldn't afford the best lenses in the specific range, it's MUCH better to save money buying the 40D to afford better lenses.

Just my 2c
--

http://www.svenrosen.smugmug.com
 
new 18-200 IS. It has bokeh at the longer lenghts that the others don't have, and it has more range to miss less shots... The 2.8 will still see use in low light wide shots, but overall...walkabout...this is it, in spite of the critics !!
 
jimbrobb said:
Having seen the review of the 17-85 IS lens with this camera it seems
a bit lacking.

What walk-about lens would you recomend? With IS? (not too expensive!)

Thanks
Jim
Click to expand...
Then it IS 17-85IS....
18-55IS is a cheap alternative... 17-55f2,8 expensive??)

many 17-85 images (it is not perfect , but.. .for walking around and IS )
here: http://web.mac.com/karipenkkila/iWeb/CANON%2040D
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E
 
17-40 F4L

I use it with my 30D. I had bought it thinking it will be a good SWA when I upgrade to FF. I think its a good walkaround for cropped sensors and its an affordable good quality L lens.
 
You may be just about the first person I've seen who owns the lenses you listed (including the 17-55) who has elected to rave about the 18-200 instead. It's pretty well been panned across the board for it's IQ. I admit that I don't own it, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but the 17-55 by my own experience has unbeatable IQ in its range, which is extremely usable for a walkaround lens. If you favor the long side, great, but the tradeoffs you're most likely making to get that sort of range would definitely not be acceptable for me. I'd rather lug around a longer lens, like the 70-200 f/4L in addition to the 17-55 rather than live with the IQ issues that the 18-200 clearly has, based on all the reviews I've read.

Just my humble opinion, and again, no direct experience with that lens. YMMV.

J.
jonrobertp said:
new 18-200 IS. It has bokeh at the longer lenghts that the others
don't have, and it has more range to miss less shots... The 2.8 will
still see use in low light wide shots, but overall...walkabout...this
is it, in spite of the critics !!
--
Click to expand...
 
KariP said:
jimbrobb said:
Having seen the review of the 17-85 IS lens with this camera it seems
a bit lacking.

What walk-about lens would you recomend? With IS? (not too expensive!)

Thanks
Jim
Click to expand...
Then it IS 17-85IS....
18-55IS is a cheap alternative... 17-55f2,8 expensive??)

many 17-85 images (it is not perfect , but.. .for walking around and
IS )
here: http://web.mac.com/karipenkkila/iWeb/CANON%2040D
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E
Click to expand...
You can have a look here:

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/402-canon_1785_456is_50d?start=1

The 50D is demanding in lens IQ and as said: 40D plus top notch lens is certainly much better then 50D with making compromise on lens.

A 15MP-sensor makes quiet little sense, if the lens isn't on par. Of course you can enjoy the new gadgets of the 50D with a less good lens, but not its IQ-capabilities.

--------------

http://www.svenrose.smugmug.com
 
I had 17-85, now I use 24-105 (needed more reach on long end). I can only say that 17-85 is excellent lens. It is not build like 24-105 (this is after all L lens), but produces excellent images with excellent focal range. It has some flaws (distorsion, CA) but that can be corrected during PP. And IS works great.

Here is ling for lens reviews. Great site. Just scrol down and there you can find all you need.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
--
Boris
Degustibus non disputandum est!

 
Sometimes a picture taken is much better than the picture you almost captured - when it took 3 sec too long to swap lenses....

IQ is not perfect but sometimes you just have to accept the facts of life. Walking around can be like that.
--
Kari
SLR photography for 40 years
60°15´N 24°03´ E
 
crop the image...res goes...and so does IQ. Yes, I've used all the lenses, and shot 10k
 
mine a few days ago. No sense keeping a lens that rarely goes on the body. I now love the extra range of the 18-200. And I will stick to my claim that the image I get at 150 to 200 mm on this lens will beat the cropped one I used to get with the shorter pricier lens. adious.
 
You didn't mention with witch camera you are or were using the 17-85 IS. In your profile there is the 40D mentioned, but not the 50D.

The lens will compete well with other lens on the 40D, on the 50D it will not compete less good as with the 40D, but simply higher Quality lenses will show the gap. That will be little difference between this lens on the 40D or the 50D. So you could save money and stay with the 40D without relevant IQ impairment. 15MP is too much for this lens.

--------------

http://www.svenrose.smugmug.com
boriszulj said:
I had 17-85, now I use 24-105 (needed more reach on long end). I can
only say that 17-85 is excellent lens. It is not build like 24-105
(this is after all L lens), but produces excellent images with
excellent focal range. It has some flaws (distorsion, CA) but that
can be corrected during PP. And IS works great.

Here is ling for lens reviews. Great site. Just scrol down and there
you can find all you need.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
--
Boris
Degustibus non disputandum est!

Click to expand...
 
sven rose said:
You didn't mention with witch camera you are or were using the 17-85
Click to expand...
On 30d and 40d.

Don't have 50d so I can't tell. But reading so many threads here, there are just few lenses right for 50d!? I think that's dogma! Also think, lenses are not cause for DR and noise drawbacks reported in DPR 50d review.
--
Boris
Degustibus non disputandum est!

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top