Walkabout lens - help please !

[dibbly dobbler]

Gents - need some help please

I am still in the throes of trying to decide what lens to buy next for my 450D (currently have the 18-55 kit lens and am upgrading my 60mm to a 100mm for macro work).

Options are:

1. Go for a do-everything walkabout like a 15-85 which is supposed to be quite good and would be a good upgrade for my 18-55

or

2. Buy something like a 17-40L and also a 70-200L

I quite like option 2 as the 'L' lenses are meant to be really good, but would I find they were both too compromised to use as 'walkabout' lenses - ie for general snapping

Any advice gratefully received as I am totally confused as usual and don't want to fork out on the wrong thing !

[Scott330ci]

24-105mm Canon

[Xaero]

Need a budget really, If you're not scared by L lenses prices then you've got a few more options.

I took a Tamron 18-280 lens with me travelling, got all the zoom range you'd want outside of a Safari. Quality is good, only downside is the autofocus is a bit slow. It is reasonably priced too.

[dibbly dobbler]

Ah yes budget ! Don't want to spend much more than £500ish on the next purchase but then there will be further budget available after a few months or so - so up to £500 odd per lens, looking to buy up to 3/4 lenses in total (I think ?!)

I just don't want to fork out on a do-it-all lens only to find I end up wanting 'better' lenses which are more specialised ...

[oobster]

Mike,

I know we have spoken about the 17-85mm IS USM I have, but how about considering the Canon EF-S 18-200 IS Lens (f3.5-5.6). It's just over £300 brand-new.

I tend to use my 28-135mm IS USM lens as a walkabout lens and (if I ever actually get the chance to use the camera) have a separate Sigma 10-20mm for nice landscape shots.

Andy

[dibbly dobbler]

oobster said:

Mike,

I know we have spoken about the 17-85mm IS USM I have, but how about considering the Canon EF-S 18-200 IS Lens (f3.5-5.6). It's just over £300 brand-new.

I tend to use my 28-135mm IS USM lens as a walkabout lens and (if I ever actually get the chance to use the camera) have a separate Sigma 10-20mm for nice landscape shots.

Andy

Thanks Andy

I know there's always going to be some compromise with this type of lens - it's just a question of how bad it will be ? (Given I am only one step removed from a complete numpty at this stuff - will I even notice !?)

For instance would the 18-200 produce a better/the same/worse result than my 18-55 if both were shooting at 18mm for example ?

[Dogsey]

I love my 15-85mm IS, it's on my camera about 85% of the time. The only times it comes off is when I need longer reach (Sigma 100-300 f4) or for higher quality portraits (Canon 50mm f1.8).

The only downside for me is the vingetting at 15mm, but it's nothing that can't be fixed in PS.

[theboyfold]

The Canon 28-70 2.8 L is a nice walkabout and normally cheaper than the newer 24-70L. The only issue is that Canon don't repair them anymore, so make sure you buy a good one. You could pick one up for about £500 or so on ebay if you are lucky.

[dibbly dobbler]

Excellent chaps - thankyou

So maybe a 15-85 as a 'walkabout' is a good first move and then wait and see if I feel the need for a uwa for lanscapes or a telephoto for wildlife - I'm guessing the 15-85 would give better results at the wide end than something like an 18-200 ? Any thoughts ?

[Kermit power]

I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which makes for a pretty decent range as a walkabout lens. Cost under £300 iirc. I do usually have a Sigma 10-20 with me as well though, otherwise 28mm at the wide end would probably get frustrating.

[dibbly dobbler]

Cheers KP - I guess that is at the nub of my dilemma (trilemma ?), would I still find I was lusting after specialist lenses (eg a good UWA) if I buy a multipurpose lens so would a walkabout upgrade ultimately be a waste of money ...

[itsnotarace]

There is no wonder lens. They all have tradeoffs - cost, weight, image quality etc

You need to work out what is your most used zoom range, and then find something in that range.

[paul911]

Mike, I have my 10-20mm on the camera most of the time for landscapes, and the 24-105mm as a walk about. But Dogseys suggestion of a 15-85mm sounds like a perfect combination for wide landscapes and general walkabout.

[Toyless]

I'm a Nikon man,but my 18-70 is the lens that's fitted the majority of the time.

The only thing I would change it for, given some budget is maybe the 2.8 18-200 ,but that's huge cash.

[dibbly dobbler]

Gents - thankyou all for your assistance

Decision made - on the basis that the 15-85 is good enough to cover my landscape needs and also mid-range snapping I am going to go for it

I have read a few reviews and they are virtually all very favourable. If I get really keen later in my photography learning curve I can always fork out on a 10-20 or some such and maybe a telephoto will follow in due course.

Small footnote - today my 60mm was picked up by a courier to go to MPB as part exchange for their 100mm (+ cash obviously )

[LongQ]

dd,

You will be pleased to know that a proper 70-200 is certainly not a walkabout lens. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

Therefore you have absolutely no need whatsoever to even look at one in a shop. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

It's your lucky day really. By not looking at this lens at all, or even reading about it, you have just saved yourself a lot of cash.

For now .....

[Hub]

dibbly dobbler said:

Decision made - on the basis that the 15-85 is good enough to cover my landscape needs and also mid-range snapping I am going to go for it

I'm looking at a similar for an 'upgrade' to the kit lens with a bit more reach. The 15-85 does get great reviews as you say, but I can't help thinking it is a bit pricey for what it is, which is why I'm leaning a bit more towards the Sigma 17-70 OS f2.8-4 for a couple of hundred £ less.

[dibbly dobbler]

LongQ said:

dd,

You will be pleased to know that a proper 70-200 is certainly not a walkabout lens. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

Therefore you have absolutely no need whatsoever to even look at one in a shop. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

It's your lucky day really. By not looking at this lens at all, or even reading about it, you have just saved yourself a lot of cash.

For now .....

You're a bad man LQ

I do fancy one of these but surely an f4 would be acceptable... and who needs IS anyway ?!

[dibbly dobbler]

Hub said:

dibbly dobbler said:

Decision made - on the basis that the 15-85 is good enough to cover my landscape needs and also mid-range snapping I am going to go for it

I'm looking at a similar for an 'upgrade' to the kit lens with a bit more reach. The 15-85 does get great reviews as you say, but I can't help thinking it is a bit pricey for what it is, which is why I'm leaning a bit more towards the Sigma 17-70 OS f2.8-4 for a couple of hundred £ less.

Hi Hub - thanks for the suggestion. The Sigma does review well but I think I have made up my mind to go for the Canon and hang the expense

[LongQ]

dibbly dobbler said:

LongQ said:

dd,

You will be pleased to know that a proper 70-200 is certainly not a walkabout lens. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

Therefore you have absolutely no need whatsoever to even look at one in a shop. Especially not the f2.8 Mk2.

It's your lucky day really. By not looking at this lens at all, or even reading about it, you have just saved yourself a lot of cash.

For now .....

You're a bad man LQ

I do fancy one of these but surely an f4 would be acceptable... and who needs IS anyway ?!

Yes, indeed, absolutely, couldn't agree more.

It's best you keep thinking that way. Your bank manager will be happier.