Yet again... finding a good all-around lens

[clarnibass]

Hi

I'm trying to decide between a few upgrades to my 18-55mm IS kit lens of my Canon Kiss X4 (aka 550D). I looked at The-Digital-Picture a lot and noticed a significant improvement with some lenses.

My uses for it, in order of priority:
- Photos of woodwind instruments like clarinets and saxophones or parts of them, mostly for a manual and sale approach.
- Photos of my or friends' concerts, which can be in places with either bright stage lights or (more often) relatively dim lights.
- Photos of my or friends' exhibitions and/or art displays/performances, with also anything from bright to dim lights.
- "Random" things I see when I go somewhere like my girlfriend's dog, some animals, who knows what. Not a top priority.

I'm considering:
Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS
Canon 17-85mm f/4.5-5.6 USM IS
Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 USM IS (theoretically... too expensive really)
Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 OS HSM
Sigma 15-50mm f/2.8 EX OS HSM
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC

I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85 eventhough it's a bit expensive. Comparisons show it is significantly better than the 18-55 IS and 17-85mm IS. It's close to the 17-55mm in some comparisons. I could use the 85mm zoom since I already found for some things I wanted to take photos. A faster lens would be nice but I think the bigger zoom is probably more important. The quiet focus could be a big advantage in some concerts. On The-Digitcal-Picture website it seems the Sigma and Tamron bigger and/or consistent aperture isn't necessarily better e.g. the 15-85mm was just as sharp if not more at the same aperture, with the bigger apertures being a little blurry (especially corners).

I'm also getting at some point a prime macro lens (probably 100mm) which I will use when I can as a good faster prime lens, when distance will work. I might also get a decent prime lens (maybe Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, something like that) for low light closer than the 100mm will be good for. Another reason I prefer the bigger zoom than the faster lens.

So basically, unless there is a reason not to get the 15-85mm e.g. the quality isn't better for the price with others being significantly less expensive, or the 17-55mm is very significantly better to the point there's no comaprison which makes the 15-85mm way overpriced, then I think that's what I'll go with.

Thank you

Nitai

 

[honoryourlife]

How about a 24-70mm? I use it for ooooo many different things!

I shoot with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and love it!

 

[Derrel]

Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS. You talked me into it!

 

[Robin Usagani]

24-105mm f/4L

 

[KmH]

Yet again... finding a good all-around lens

Such a lens doesn't exist.

85 mm on the long end is to short for "all-around".

 

[mrpink]

Yet again... finding a good all-around lens

Such a lens doesn't exist.

85 mm on the long end is to short for "all-around".

depends on what "all-around" really means.

But I do agree, there is no "perfect for all situations and events" lens- from any manufacturer.





p!nK

 

[o hey tyler]

I've heard great things about the 10-200mm f/2.

BEST LENS EVER.

 

[mrpink]

I've heard great things about the 10-200mm f/2.

BEST LENS EVER.

No "L"?





p!nK

 

[clarnibass]

How about a 24-70mm? I use it for ooooo many different things!

I shoot with a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 and love it!

That one is too expensive. Even the 17-55mm is really. From my only experience with my kit 18-55mm it seems like the shorter focus can also help with some of what I want to do.

Yet again... finding a good all-around lens

Such a lens doesn't exist.

85 mm on the long end is to short for "all-around".

Doesn't exist...? A good all-around lens? I'm not looking for a lens that would be the best for everything, just good at what I want it for. That is a noticable amount better than my kit lens. Main thing is I want sharper photos than what I get now and online comparisons I found show most of the lenses I mentioned are significantly sharper.

From what I found so far with my 18-55m lens, the 85mm would be good enough for my all-around. If I ever feel really limited by it I will consider buying another lens with a longer focus. For now even the 55mm is something I can live with if I have to but rather not to. I also plan on buying a 100mm macro lens which will probably work as a good prime lens anyway if I want this long focus(?).

depends on what "all-around" really means.

But I do agree, there is no "perfect for all situations and events" lens- from any manufacturer.

Right, I'm not looking for a perfect lens, not for all situations and not really for any situation. I'm sure I could find a lens that is better in just about every way for any situation I will use mine in. I just want sharper photos than what I have now, without spending more money than I'm willing to spend, to get the best possible lens for me for that amount. I described what I considered and what my conclusion was, but being a beginner, maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I shouldn't even get a new lens, I don't know. It's just the comparisons I found showed significant differences (I assume in similar/identical conditions), plus the bigger focus range and quiet focus can help a lot too.

Thank you

 

[o hey tyler]

I've heard great things about the 10-200mm f/2.

BEST LENS EVER.

No "L"?





p!nK

No, it's an EF-S lens. :lmao:

 

[Raian-san]

There is not perfect all around lens. I think one of the good walk around lens that's in your budget is probably the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. Its versatile for short to a bit mid range lens with 2.8 aperture for decent low light for concert.

 

[dallasimagery]

On a full-frame camera, I was amazed how how "walk-aroundable" the 70-200 is - I basically never take it off. It seems like I can always have enough room to take a shot with 70mm on a full-frame, and of course 200 is plenty long. For the other times, I shoot with my wife and she has a 5d with a 17-40

 

[subscuck]

Don't underestimate the value of a constant aperture zoom. The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is worth looking into. If the Canon is as sharp or a little sharper, what does it matter if you can't use it in certain lighting situations where the Tamron would be useable? I realize you like the range of the Canon, but it's pretty slow glass and IS only does so much.

 

[usayit]

I've been looking for a relatively inexpensive zoom AF lens(es) to throw on an old K10D (so far only used for manual K's). The Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 really caught my eye as a lens that brings lots of value to the table. The f/2.8 aperture and focal range seems very suited to APS crop sensors for versatility.

A review site that rarely gets mentioned on the TPF: All Tests / Reviews- photozone.de

For Canon, my walk around lens of choice was the 24-105L on a 1d MII. I agree though, there is no best all-around lens... and the choice is VERY personal.


There seems to be a lot of talk about the newer "super zooms" from Tamron as well... 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3. Most trails stating that IQ was surprisingly good for a lens with such a huge focal range. The IQ is noticeably better than the original 18-200mm it replaced. Then again, it is a personal choice... as it still is a compromise (IQ mainly) for the focal range. But with 18-250mm in a single pocket lens... that's pretty versatile.

 

[Dao]

The Canon 15-85mm lens just too high in price. The price (new around $760) is close the used 24-105mm f/4L (used around $800). So I'd rather get the 24-105mm L lens and add a ulta wide later on.