Good value versatile Canon Lens?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by TechNut315, Jul 18, 2011.

  1. TechNut315 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #1
    I have just bought a Canon 550D (body only) and I am looking for a versatile lens at about £300 or less. I didn't go for the 18-55mm standard because I would like something with a bit more range. I had a look at these three

    1) Canon EF-S 18-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
    2) Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
    3) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

    They all get poor reviews. I next looked at these 2, which get much better reviews but are out my price range.

    1) Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 USM L IS
    2) Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS

    The newer EF-S 18-55mm IS lens and the 55-250mm IS USM lens seem to be quite good (for the price) but I hate having to swap the lens. This lens

    1) Canon EF - Zoom lens - 28 mm - 135 mm - f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

    Seems to get pretty solid reviews and is in my price range but it is an EF lens which makes it 45-216mm lens on my body and I feel I might as well buy the 55-250mm. Does anyone know of good mid range lens at my price range or know if this lens can cope with landscapes? Ideally I would like it to be a Canon brand and have IS.
     
  2. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #2
    EF-s lenses are subject to the same field of view crop as EF lenses.
     
  3. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #3
  4. jabbott, Jul 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2011

    jabbott macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    #4
    If you hate swapping lenses, you may want to try out the Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 VC. In the corners it somewhat lacks sharpness and has some chromatic aberration, but otherwise it looks to be fairly impressive for its size and price. You would be able to do landscapes, portraits or telephoto with the same lens. It has "Vibration Compensation" (VC) which is analogous to IS. It is rated 4.5 out of 5 stars with 288 reviews at B&H Photo. Tamron also has a rebate going on right now for it here in the U.S. making it about £300 at B&H Photo before import duties and shipping (vs. £500 at Jessops). It's a mail-in rebate though so you'd have to find someone in the U.S. willing to get it for you.
     
  5. phatspider macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 20, 2005
    #5
    the 24-105 is an amazing lens

    i was gonna go for that but then settled on a 2nd hand 28-70 f2.8 and a 70-200 f2.8 - both of which are awesome

    spend as much as you can afford on a lens - you won't regret it
     
  6. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #6
    The OP specifically mentioned that this lens is out of his/her price range.
     
  7. TechNut315 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #7
    Yes, I meant I may as well buy a proper zoom lens with betters optics if I can't use this lens for landscapes. Thank you for your input. As OreoCookie says those are out my price range. I need something anput £300/$500 or less. Cheers
     
  8. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #8
    Does it have to be new? I've bought almost all my lenses on eBay. It's a great way to get fantastic quality lenses for less.
     
  9. OreoCookie macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Sendai, Japan
    #9
    I very much agree that buying lenses used is the way to go. I bought all of my lenses used. :)

    Although I'm not sure what the used market in the UK is like, the 24-105 mm sells for 700~750 € used.
     
  10. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #10
    That particular lens would not be within the price range in the UK either.
     
  11. TechNut315 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #11
    It doesn't need to be new, I'm happy with bargains on eBay. Can u think of any lens robbieduncan? It looks like I might just have to save for the canon 15-85mm, it gets good reviews and isn't too far away from my price range on eBay.
     
  12. robbieduncan Moderator emeritus

    robbieduncan

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2002
    Location:
    London
    #12
    The 15-85mm gets great reviews. But for the price the 17-55mm f/2.8IS might be a better bet: it's fast, image stabilised and meant to have almost L class glass.

    The other option is to get the older 17-85mm IS USM. They go very cheap on eBay these days and are OK. I have one. It's OK. Not great but OK.
     
  13. c1phr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2011
    #13
    I can comment that this is a very good lens for the price, and it's been around forever. It doesn't do the best for landscapes only because it isn't super wide (and as said above, EF and EF-S lenses are subject to the field of view crop). It does need to be stopped down slightly for best sharpness, but I find it's a very nice walk-around/general purpose.

    I have heard many surprisingly-good things about the Canon kit 18-55, which is not sold new so you'll have to find it used. It's very cheap however, at least here in the US (~$100). If you're shooting serious landscapes, it may not be good enough however, I say read some reviews to see if you can cope with its weaknesses (but obviously beware of Ken Rockwell, he doesn't seem to like anything with the Canon name on it).
     
  14. '73-B macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arlington, VA
    #14
    I'm in a similar position - I had a T2i and 15-85 USM that was stolen. Through some wheeling and dealing helped by recent Canon rebate promotions I was able to pick up a new body with the 18-200 lens. I tried it out the lens and was not impressed, the 15-85 was much nicer, so I sold it.

    I'm now trying to decide between the 15-85, which you mentioned is out of your price range, and the new Sigma 17-50 F2.8 EX OS. The sigma is about $100(USD) cheaper than the 15-85, not sure if that puts it in your price range, but if it does, I would check it out. The reviews I've read put it on par (optically) with the venerable Canon EF-S 17-55.
     
  15. marsmissions macrumors 6502

    marsmissions

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, US
    #15
    The 15-85 is great.

    So is the 24-105

    But I must ask, why did you buy a DSLR if you didn't want to switch lenses?
     
  16. Nostromo macrumors 65816

    Nostromo

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    Location:
    Deep Space
    #16
    There's an 18-55/2.8 lens for around $1000. That's an excellent lens.

    Don't forget to count in the crop factor of 1,6 for a cropped sensor.
     
  17. iBookG4user macrumors 604

    iBookG4user

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #17
    Have you checked out the Sigma 17-70mm? That is a very versatile lens and also allows you to focus pretty close, plus the aperture is extremely decent. I've owned it before and was quite satisfied with the lens. (Only sold it because I went to an all prime setup)
     
  18. Bonch macrumors 6502

    Bonch

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Lithuania
  19. rkmac macrumors 6502

    rkmac

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    JAFA, New Zealand
    #19
    I can highly recommend the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS.
    Great general-purpose zoom lens. Almost-L-series-quality so it is quite expensive, however I think a good investment in a nice lens is worth it. I wouldnt recommend buying a cheap lens just because you dont have enough money right now. I'd say save up for a bit and get a better lens as you will end up selling the lens and losing money on it if you find its inferior quality makes it not worth it.
    I initially used a Canon 18-200mm and while it was easy to travel with, I now use 2 lenses (17-55 and 70-200) because I feel the quality of the lens is more important than portability and the hassle of having to change the lens.
     

Share This Page