What walk-around (focus on landscapes) lens should I aim for

[Civchic]

I shoot with a Canon T3 and will be doing so for at least the next couple of years. I'm getting more into landscapes lately and my 18-55 kit lens is getting a workout. I know it isn't the sharpest tool in the drawer. I've been eyeing the Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 and it will likely be my next lens.

However, I also need a good walk-around lens. I'm an avid hiker and 90% of the pictures I take are on hikes and adventures with my kids. So the 14mm won't be good for that. I need something with a bit of zoom on the wide end. I actually really like the range of the 18-55. I use my 55-250 as a hiking lens only if I know we'll be going somewhere with a lot of birds and critters, or the zoo or something.

What would you recommend? A 24-70? IS there something that would meet my needs? A bit faster glass would be nice, but it's not essential as this is an "outside good weather" type need. Price less than $600 preferably, $1000 max.

Do I just stick with the kit for now?

 

[Nevermore1]

I got the 18-135 as the kit lens when I purchased my 70D and so far have been very happy with it. It has both the wider angle and more zoom than the typical 18-55 that usually comes with most cameras. If I am just running out for the day with no specific intention os taking photos it is the one I will have on my camera as it so have been suitable for just about every unexpected need so far.

 

[CameraClicker]

24-70 F/4 may be an option. The f/2.8 version is heavy.
Look at Canon's 18-200, Sigma's 18-250, Tamron's 18-270. I have not tried the Tamron. Both Canon and Sigma versions are great. I have the Sigma.

 

[ronlane]

The 24-105mm f/4 is in that range as well. It's a good lens to use as a walk around lens. I know a lot of people that use this one. (It's what I want to upgrade to after I get my new body.)

 

[CameraClicker]

The thing with any 24-XX lens on an APS-C body is that you are giving up a lot of width.

 

[Civchic]

I know, that's why I like the 18-55, but I find it kind of soft a lot of the time. I can get nice images with it, but I also get a larger amount of scrap than I do with the 55-250. But I figure if I pick up the Rokinon I'll have that wide lens for when I really want it for an expansive landscape shot.

Thanks for the recommendations, I will definitely check some of these out!

 

[CameraClicker]

Not great photos, but they show what you lose if you have 24 mm instead of 18 at the short end. I picked the top right corner of a building in the distance so the centre of each photo is the same.



18 mm 24 mm

 

[Civchic]

Wow, thanks for the quick comparison shots CC. That's pretty significant (and would likely irritate me). I'm probably going to rent a couple of lenses from the local store before I decide which to buy.

 

[CameraClicker]

Renting a lens or two to try out is an excellent idea. Or a store with a lenient return policy.

For giggles, here is the same centre, from the other end of the 18-250 lens


and a 100% crop from the middle


... and the lower left corner

I should mention, the tree is a city block closer than the light brown wall, and a couple of blocks closer than the wall with windows.

 

[Ido]

Your best bet is probably the Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6, which -- if you don't necessarily need to shoot in low light -- suits the bill pretty much perfectly.

 

[Derrel]

I have to agree with Ido above: the 15-85mm would fit the bill for a good walkaround lens on your camera. Walkaround to me means, wide-normal-telephoto and it also means a lens used singly, with no other lens to back it up or switch out to. The 24mm bottom end disqualifies all the 24-70 or 24-105mm models because, well, it's like having a 42mm pseudo-normal to tele lens...just...not that useful on a lens that NEEDS some wide-angle capability because you have no other lens with a "walkaround".

Wide. Normal. Tele. 15-85mm. Lightish. Smallish.

 

[Ido]

I have to agree with Ido above: the 15-85mm would fit the bill for a good walkaround lens on your camera. Walkaround to me means, wide-normal-telephoto and it also means a lens used singly, with no other lens to back it up or switch out to. The 24mm bottom end disqualifies all the 24-70 or 24-105mm models because, well, it's like having a 42mm pseudo-normal to tele lens...just...not that useful on a lens that NEEDS some wide-angle capability because you have no other lens with a "walkaround".

Wide. Normal. Tele. 15-85mm. Lightish. Smallish.

And the 15-85 goes wider than any other standard zoom lens for Canon APS-C - the next closest starts at 17, and of course many start at 18mm.

 

[Civchic]

I've never even heard of that lens, guys, thanks!

 

[weepete]

Or the sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 HSM C which has slightly less range but is a stop faster, just as sharp and is significantly cheaper than the Canon 15-85mm

 

[dannylightning]

for landscapes I generally stay in the 18-55 range. It would be nice to have the option for something like 10mm. the wider you can go the better IMO you might now always want to go that wide but in some cases It would probably come in handy..

but I find the 18-55mm range does quite well. i do have a crop sensor body though, maybe 18mm on a full frame sensor might be allot wider