More about good walk-around lenses

[Neiby]

After much discussion a few days ago, I decided to just go get a camera and a couple of lenses, so I could start shooting and see the results for myself. After a couple of days with my new 60D and my two new lenses, I have to say that while I *really* enjoy using the Canon 18-200mm, I'm just not satisfied with the results, in general. It's just not sharp and there is a lot of chromatic aberration. I shot 170 pictures at a parade today and I got some good results, but I'm still not pleased with the lack of clarity in the 18-200mm. I loved using it, though. In practical terms, it was what I needed. I needed to be able to get some wide angle shots but then quickly zoom in and get some more personal shots, and for that purpose I think it worked great.

I realize that there are just physical limitations to having really clear lenses that high a wide range of focal lengths, but is there something that is a step up from the Canon 18-200mm that would fill a similar role but be noticeably more clear? If you needed a good walkaround lens and you could only pick one, what would you select?

On an unrelated note, I have to say that I really am liking the 60D. Since there were so many people around, I really appreciated the ability to switch to a single, center focus point. I had many shots where there were people in between me and the subject of the photo. It's going to take a while to really learn how to use this new tool, but I love it, so far.

Anyway, if you had to pick one walkaround lens, what would you select? Or, perhaps phrased differently, if you were out walking around and shooting a parade with a mixture of wide angle shots and close-ups, what lens or lenses would you consider using?

Thanks!
John

 

[chaosrealm93]

depends on how much money you have to spend. i would say the 18-105 would be a good start. definitely 24-70 over that if you have the money

 

[Neiby]

I really did enjoy the long reach of the 18-200mm today. Other than on my little compact, I haven't used a 105mm. How do you think the effective (or apparent) reach of the 18-105mm compares to the 18-200mm? Would I basically be giving up a little reach for an increase of clarity? I guess no matter which lens I get, that's going to be the trade-off, right?

Thanks!

 

[IgsEMT]

18-200, at least on nikon end has few faults. Try these and see if it solves the problem, keep in mind though that u won't get a quality of higher end lenses or prime from it but following worked for me:
1. Boost sharpness to 4-5, maybe even 6.
2. Don't shoot wider then 6.3 and don't stop down above 16 - those sweet stops are for that lens
3. Don't shoot wider then 20-24mm and keep the zoom no more then 170-180.

Ive used that glass for nikon and above worked great - the moment I went outside of parameters quality was sacrificed. I ended up selling this lens for financial reasons but it was a great walk around/vacation lens. I shot few wedding with it number of years ago and again keeping w/in those parameters, all was well time and time again.
Good luck

 

[IgsEMT]

Writing from iPod sux, Don't know how to go back and edit the text.
Anyways, 18-105again on nikon end is in similar boat when it comes to f-stop and wider zoom range. On 105end it's pretty sharp - did number of portrait sessions w/it sometime ago and large prints came out great.

 

[Neiby]

I thought about getting the Tamron 18-270 initially, but I heard that the Canon 18-200mm had better image quality. If that's the case, I'm glad I didn't get the Tamron! Don't get me wrong. The 18-200mm doesn't suck, but I'm fairly sensitive to chromatic aberration, so I get annoyed about it quickly. I suppose that given the situation and the variety of things I had to be able to shoot--and quickly--this lens did an adequate job. I did get a few shots that I really like a lot.

 

[Neiby]

I just picked the best of those pictures from today and processed them a little bit. I was in a hurry, so I just used Picasa to crop, sharpen and adjust the colors a bit, knowing full well that Picasa totally screws with the colors during upload. These were meant for sharing with some people, so it was a decent trade-off. I don't expect anyone to look at them and do a C&C on them, but if you're interested to see how the lens turned out, here are some examples. After cropping and tweaking, I would have to say that it did a good enough job at what I was needing it to do today.

https://picasaweb.google.com/111135877829919203501/StrasburgHometownDays2011#

 

[WesternGuy]

A lot depends on the budget you have, which you did not specify. I really like my 24-105 and my 70-200...there is a little overlap and if I had to choose one, it would be the 24-105. My copy is great, IQ is fantastic (IMO) and it isn't really that heavy. I use both on my 5D classic. HTH.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

 

[Ron Evers]

While my preference is to shoot with prime lenses, for a walk-about/vacation lens I use a zoom. My choice is very simalar to Western guy's, a 35-105/3.5, it covers a nice range & stays sharp because it has a limited range of FLs.

 

[Robin Usagani]

What's up 303!

I think the best walk around lens is 24-105mm f/4 L. There is one floating around on CL. You should be able to bargain it down to $800 - $850.

 

[PJL]

If you want good results in a zoom lens, you shouldn't go much larger than 3-4x zoom. The 18-200 is a 11x zoom, which explains the problems you're having with sharpness, chromatic aberration, and, if you look at a pic with strong lines in it, you'll notice a considerable amount of pin-cushion or barrel distortion at the extreme ends of the focal length range.

As a walking around lens on a very small budget, I love my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. The 24-105 f/4 L is obviously going to be better in terms of technical image quality.

 

[Neiby]

Funny coincidence: I just saw a used 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM on Craigslist. The reviews made it sound like it was a pretty nice lens, especially for the money. The ad is a couple of weeks old, though, so I bet it's gone already.

 

[Neiby]

I went out for a walk with my kids tonight and got some good use out of the 18-200mm again, but I also tried out a bunch of shots with the 50mm f/1.8 and I'm really liking that lens a lot. It is a really nice lens for portraits. I'm impressed enough with this one that I can't wait to one day be able to afford the 1.4 L.

 

[fokker]

For me my favourite walkaround lens is a 50mm prime even though it's often a little inconvenient. In terms of zooms, I was a fan of the 17-55 f/2.8 that I used on my 40d but 55mm might not be enough reach for you. Consider the 15-85 if you value the wide end or the 28-300 L if you value the long end. Both are good lenses but expensive and slow aperture. The 28-300L is also a pretty hefty lens which counts against it as a walkaround.

 

[Robin Usagani]

The 1.4 is not an L. 1.2 is.