Best General-purpose lens for 50D

Let me start off by stating that I own the following Canon lenses: 10-22, 24-105, 70-200 f/4, 70-300, 100-400 plus five primes. I purchased the 50D just before Christmas with the 18-200 as a kit. My intention was to use the 18-200 on my 40D body for taking photos while kayaking. Previously, I had used the 70-300 for that purpose, but found myself wanting more on the wide end. I have found the 18-200 to be so versitle in so many situations, it stays attached to my 50D body on a permanent basis. It is an excellent lens.
--
http://tommajor.smugmug.com/

the Tamron 17-50 would be the second choice if you could get one which focussed properly but forget stuff like the 17-85 EFS as the 50D shows up its weaknesses manifold ..

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

I like the 24-105f/4 IS allot, then again, I have no need or interest in anything real wide. Some say you won't miss the gap between 55 and 70mm, and you might not, however I would miss it a great deal. Most of my shots with the 24-105 have been over 55mm. Personally, for me (and everyone's needs vary), while the EFS17-55f/2.8 IS is, quality wise (IQ), one of the best lenses Canon currently makes, for me it is just much to short for a general purpose walk around lens.

As a one lens setup i would go the 24-105 IS, but i believe you need at least 3 lens to best cover all phtography, and i like the 10-22, 24-70L, 70-300IS.

You could replace the 24-70 with the 24-105 but i like my 24-70 f2.8 much better.

--I sold it because I preferred the 24-70. I did this mainly because I didn't like be limited to the 55mm

I do have a question for you, how do you like the 400 on the 50? I just sold my 100-400 (hope this is not a mistake) and bought the 400 5.6 so I have a better lens for BIF. I did have the 400 before the 100-400 and I couldn't get a decent shot now that I have learned more about MA I feel it should help if this lens is not up to snuff

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

mike bustad said:

I do have a question for you, how do you like the 400 on the 50? I
just sold my 100-400 (hope this is not a mistake) and bought the 400
5.6 so I have a better lens for BIF. I did have the 400 before the
100-400 and I couldn't get a decent shot now that I have learned more
about MA I feel it should help if this lens is not up to snuff

Click to expand...

I think the 400mm f/5.6L is a wonderful lens and makes for a very good wildlife lens when coupled with the cropping ability and resolution of the 50D. It generally has faster AF and is a little sharper than the 100-400 (especially at 400mm). It is also a little lighter and less cumbersome as you know.

Given the terrible weather here, I havent been able to photograph many BIF at all, so I havent used AI Servo mode much. But from the limited experience I have had thus far, the AF is very fast and you have no troubles locking onto your bird. If only the rain would clear up so I can go out and practice.

I havent had the chance to MA the lens yet, it's been pouring with rain here for over a month, so overcast days arent the best of days for adjusting the focus on a lens. I do get the odd photo which isnt sharp, but that is mainly my fault. The ones that are sharp could be a little sharper, but once I alter the focus adjustment on the lens, all will be fine; plus I can sharpen in PP anyway. The photo in my siggie of the chestnut-breasted mannikin is a 100% crop using the 400 prime on my 50D. Unfortunately I dont have any good BIF to show you, but I have seen some great ones on this forum with the 400mm.

--
Cheers,
Dale

'I stand to be, and usually am, corrected'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29394895@N06/

Menges88 said:

mike bustad said:

I do have a question for you, how do you like the 400 on the 50? I
just sold my 100-400 (hope this is not a mistake) and bought the 400
5.6 so I have a better lens for BIF. I did have the 400 before the
100-400 and I couldn't get a decent shot now that I have learned more
about MA I feel it should help if this lens is not up to snuff

Click to expand...

I think the 400mm f/5.6L is a wonderful lens and makes for a very
good wildlife lens when coupled with the cropping ability and
resolution of the 50D. It generally has faster AF and is a little
sharper than the 100-400 (especially at 400mm). It is also a little
lighter and less cumbersome as you know.

Given the terrible weather here, I havent been able to photograph
many BIF at all, so I havent used AI Servo mode much. But from the
limited experience I have had thus far, the AF is very fast and you
have no troubles locking onto your bird. If only the rain would clear
up so I can go out and practice.

I havent had the chance to MA the lens yet, it's been pouring with
rain here for over a month, so overcast days arent the best of days
for adjusting the focus on a lens. I do get the odd photo which isnt
sharp, but that is mainly my fault. The ones that are sharp could be
a little sharper, but once I alter the focus adjustment on the lens,
all will be fine; plus I can sharpen in PP anyway. The photo in my
siggie of the chestnut-breasted mannikin is a 100% crop using the 400
prime on my 50D. Unfortunately I dont have any good BIF to show you,
but I have seen some great ones on this forum with the 400mm.

--
Cheers,
Dale

'I stand to be, and usually am, corrected'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29394895@N06/

Click to expand...

--Yes the weather is one reason I am hesitant about the 400 I live in the Pacific NW and we have more dark cloudy gloomy days than sun. But really in these type of days the 100-400 really doesn't do well for BIF. But I now have the 70-200 2.8 IS that I can use on the bad days plus with the 50D the crop factor makes this a longer lens in a way when I do some huge cropping

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

the 24-105 was a f/2.8 then I would go for it, I would appreciate the longer focal length, however not sure if 24mm would be wide enough for some landscapes. I havent done alot of landscape photography around here, so I wouldnt know if 24mm was limiting or not. I guess if in doubt, the wider the better. I may well not need f/2.8, but I would like to have the opportunity to use that aperture if I did find myself doing some lowlight action photography. The 24-70 is a 2.8, but doesnt have IS. I know IS is not all that important sometimes, but most of my photographs are taken handheld, so IS would be very handy for times when the shutter speed had to be kept low.

The 55mm on the 17-55mm may be limiting, but I will most likely get the 70-200mm f/4 IS at one stage regardless, which does leave a small gap between 55 and 70 but probaly not enough to warrant too much concern.

The 10-22 is also on my radar, but would be a more specialist lens and would require me to stand very close when taking a portrait. If the 24-70 had IS, I would get it, so at the moment it looks like it may be the 17-55 or maybe the 24-105, but f/2.8 would be nice and perhaps a slightly wider focal length than 24mm.

Gosh, choosing a lens can be incredibly difficult sometimes!

Thanks for all your comments and help.

--
Cheers,
Dale

'I stand to be, and usually am, corrected'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29394895@N06/

mike bustad said:

Menges88 wrote:
--Yes the weather is one reason I am hesitant about the 400 I live in
the Pacific NW and we have more dark cloudy gloomy days than sun. But
really in these type of days the 100-400 really doesn't do well for
BIF. But I now have the 70-200 2.8 IS that I can use on the bad days
plus with the 50D the crop factor makes this a longer lens in a way
when I do some huge cropping

Click to expand...

I think the 400 should still do ok on dark days, the sky is always lighter than its surroudings, so if you are photographing a BIF with the sky in the background, then it shouldnt be too bad. I have the issue alot here of working around noise because I couldnt get a shutter speed fast enough without increasing the ISO, but we do get lots of sunny days here as well, so I cant complain too much.

If only the 400 f/2.8 were both affordable and lighter in weight!

--
Cheers,
Dale

'I stand to be, and usually am, corrected'

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29394895@N06/

mike bustad said:

--I sold it because I preferred the 24-70. I did this mainly because
I didn't like be limited to the 55mm

Click to expand...

That's amazing Mike, you give up a massive amount of wide performance and an amazing image stabilizer for a mere 15mm of long end and pay the penalty of vast weight increase, more bulk and cost ...... if it were the 24-105 I could understand as it has the IS and more long end but not the 24-70 .. shows we're all different.

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Hi Dale,

I'll have to put in my obligatory plug for the often-overlooked Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro. I've been shooting through one of these babies for nearly the past two years and I love it, it pretty much lives on my 30D. It's sharpy, sharp and has a great background blur. It gives you that 17mm on the wide end (EFL 27mm on FF) that a 24mm just won't deliver (EFL 38mm) for a crop camera. And the 70mm (EFL 112mm) sort of makes this akin to the range of the 24-105mm on a FF...nice! I've lent this lens out twice to folks in the same boat as you (and as I once was) and they've both seen the light and purchased one for themselves! 'Nuff said. Did I mention that it does macro, too?

My two cents. Best of luck in your decisions and be sure to let us know how you make out!

Peace,
Jimmy G

Jimmy G said:

I'll have to put in my obligatory plug for the often-overlooked Sigma
17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro.

Click to expand...

It's a great Buy and IMO a better lens than either revision of their 18-50 F2.8 EX but remember that the 50D has almost twice the pixel count of your 30D and that shows up all the failings of a lens (CA and misfocussing in the case of the Sigma 17-70 in Canon mount though it does focus better than a lot of other sigmas) ..

At the wide end I found the 17-70 to be quite a performer for the money, not so much so at the long end at long distance (better at close range at 70mm) however.

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Torchwood said:

Torchwood said:

--I sold it because I preferred the 24-70. I did this mainly because
I didn't like be limited to the 55mm

Click to expand...

That's amazing Mike, you give up a massive amount of wide performance
and an amazing image stabilizer for a mere 15mm of long end and pay
the penalty of vast weight increase, more bulk and cost ...... if it
were the 24-105 I could understand as it has the IS and more long end
but not the 24-70 .. shows we're all different.

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

--Oh but it's an awesome lens I have always thought it one of the best lenses I have owned. I have always liked it better than the 17-55 and yes it's only 15mm difference but I like it and I like the color, contrast more and I love the weight LOL

Oh yeah 24 is plenty wide for me I really not into wide shooting

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

the 17-55 and the 24-105 are the two that come to my mind and many others also. I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

For me 24 is not bad on a crop body. You do get almost double the longer focal length on the 24-105 compared to the 17-55.
17 is obviously wider, and the 2.8 is superb.
I love both of these lenses for the differences and superb image quality.

mike bustad said:

--Oh but it's an awesome lens I have always thought it one of the
best lenses I have owned. I have always liked it better than the
17-55

Click to expand...

Just shows we are all different .. I'd personally love a 27-90 F2.8 which performs as well on FF as the 17-55 does on a 50D , especially if it was the same size ! ..

BTW which compact did you end up with, I sorta got lost on that score ;-)

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Nick5 said:

the 17-55 and the 24-105 are the two that come to my mind and many
others also. I don't think you can go wrong with either one.

Click to expand...

I actually have both, the 24-105 is my de-fact work lens on the 1DS2 as if I need fast glass for isolation or Bokeh, Primes are the only answer anyway -- the 17-55 is a good match for the 50D as its faster aperture makes up for some of the difference in High ISO performance (the 1DS2 in RAW is almost as clean as a D700 or D3 at 100%) but the 24-105 gives very useful reach.

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Torchwood said:

Torchwood said:

--Oh but it's an awesome lens I have always thought it one of the
best lenses I have owned. I have always liked it better than the
17-55

Click to expand...

Just shows we are all different .. I'd personally love a 27-90
F2.8 which performs as well on FF as the 17-55 does on a 50D ,
especially if it was the same size ! ..

BTW which compact did you end up with, I sorta got lost on that score
;-)

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

Click to expand...

--Decided not to get one Adam and what's with the name change? Are you new here I noticed last night you only had 69 post LOL
Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

--
Canon EF-S 17-55 mm F2.8 IS USM

mike bustad said:

--Decided not to get one Adam and what's with the name change?

Click to expand...

My cookies got deleted and I couldn't log in under my name so I used my Brothers Seldom used account and now its Deleted Adam-T and linked my E-Mail address to Torchwood -- I asked if my own acct could be re-activated but as usual with DPR, no reply (too busy driving Taxis or whatever they do as real Jobs I guess)

--
--------> Adam-T

Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist