Walkaround Lens(es)

[yayas]

Hi Bob,

I just subscribe to this forum today, and it's my first post.
I have been following your site quite a while now, and I'm really enjoying it and found it very useful.
I'm by no means a photographer but I'm very interested to make decent photos.

I owned 350D for 2 years, now 400D, and mainly shooting my kid.
The current lenses I've got are EF-S 18-55 IS, EF-S 55-250 IS, and EF 50/1.8 I, and I'm quite satisfied with them.
Last month I tried to get Tamron 17-50/2.8 which was very sharp (when focused correctly) but had a front-focus problem, and then Tamron 28-75/2.8 which was very soft wide-open and also had severe focus problem. Now I'm back to Canon lenses.

As I'm planning to stay in France next few months (for 1-2 years), I'm now seriously thinking about better/productive lens(es). I expect I'll be traveling around and making loads of photos without changing lenses too often.

I have a couple question:

1) Do you think my setup is sufficient/productive for daily traveling ?
If I got EF 28-135 IS and keep my 18-55IS to cover wide-angle, would it be more versatile for walkaround than my current ones? (combo 18-55/55-250 vs 18-55/28-135)

2) Do you think Canon will release a lens with the range of, say, 18-105 IS ? If so then I'd be very happy traveling with only one lens.
(EF 24-105 L is certainly not in my list)

Thanks very much.
-yayas

[KeithB]

I find that the EF-S 17-85 IS and the EF70-300 IS make an excellent all-purpose pair.  The 17-85 is great for most things, and the 70-300 gives me that extra bit of reach.  While there is a bit of distortion at 17, it is usually not that noticeable, and I really like the angle of view.

[yayas]

Thanks Keith,
Given I already have 55-250is, and in very tight budget, I don't think I can afford both lenses.
Anyway, I'll seriously consider 17-85 to replace my kit.

There's also a used Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 II for $100 here in my country, I'm now thinking to get one without dumping my current lenses. All reviews suggest it's a lower IQ than 28-135is. Anyone has experience with the lens?

Regards.
Andreas

[lukeap69]

I think you have a very capable setup, light and good reach. the difference from 250 to 300 is not much. both of the lenses you have have very good reviews and followings. I suggest you stick with your current lenses.

Now play more with that 50 1.8. Primes are fun. 

Cheers

[yayas]

Thanks all.
I have no experiences traveling with dslr.
All I have done mainly family shots.

I hope I can go traveling with more confidence now.

Cheers.

[yayas]

Hi folks...
I've just got a bit more fresh cash.. now I'm pondering to upgrade my setup a little.
For walkaround and everyday family shots, (I already own 50 1.,
Which combo would you choose between these two?

1. Tokina 12-24 | Tamron 28-75 (12-75 range)
2. Tamron 17-50 | Canon 55-250is (17-250 range)

Thanks.

[lukeap69]

Hi Yayas

I thought you mentioned you have the 55-250 IS already. The Tamron 17-50 will definitely get my vote unless you need wider than that.

Cheers

[yayas]

Thanks Luke, I'll consider your advice.
Yes, I have 50/1.8, 55-250is, and have sold my 18-55 is.

I don't know it's just me or do you also feel that many 18-55is review is way exaggerated.
I'm not saying it's a bad lens at all, it's definitely a step up from older 18-55, but it's not as sharp as reviewed.
The color contrast is also not too impressive. I'm not a photographer or pixel-peeper, it's just my impression after viewing my result with the lens.

I would love to get a pretty wide lens to shoot my kid in the room, and a pretty shallow dof in the long end without changing the lens. For now, I would limit my options to 2 combos: trading my 55-250is with Tamron 28-75 and get an ultrawide, or keep my 55-250 and get Tamron 17-50.

After 2 bad experiences with Tamron, I'll likely to give it another (maybe the last) go.

[Bob Atkins]

I tested the Tamron 17-50/2.8 some time ago and found it to be a pretty good lens. If you haven't seen the review, it's here:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_17-50_review.html

[yayas]

Thanks Bob,
Yes I have read your reviews, and the way you reviewed those lenses, somehow I was sold to Tamron 28-75 after reading them.
Seem to me you rated 28-75 very highly (even sharper than a prime) and rated 17-50 as "good" or even "pretty good".
Thats why I still consider 28-75 despite its odd focal range in a crop body.

Assuming both are good copies, do they have very similar image quality?

Regards,
andreas

[Bob Atkins]

Personally, I'd decide based on focal length, not sharpness. Both are good lenses but a 17-50 is a different beast than a 28-75, especially on a crop sensor camera. 17mm is a wideangle focal length (equivalent to about 27mm on fiull frame). Wide, but not superwide. On the other hand 28mm is definately a "normal" lens (equivalent to about 45mm on full frame).

So choosing between:

1. Tokina 12-24 | Tamron 28-75 (12-75 range)
2. Tamron 17-50 | Canon 55-250is (17-250 range)

I'd make my choice based on whether I want a wide lens (choice 1) or a telephoto lens (choice 2) more then which is the "better" lens.

[yayas]

Thanks..
I'll rethink it carefully to know which range I actually need more.

My friend told me that it's more sensible now to invest on full-frame lenses as the trend will likely go towards cheap full-frame sensor with "affordable" price for ordinary users like me.

I also have read your articles about it (I believe it's written quite long ago, correct me if I'm wrong) about the future of the sensor.
Do you see it's coming in a quite near future, so it's safer to invest on full-frame lenses rather than cropped ones?

Regards,
Andreas

[lukeap69]

Yayas

I have never used 18-55 IS so I cannot comment on its performance.

The Tamron 17-50 I have is the most used zoom lens in my arsenal. I have the UWA Sigma 10-20 which is also a very good lens but I don't get to use it much. For my style, 17mm is wide enough for most of my shots.

As for the FF thing, my suggestion is to base your lens selection on your current camera. You can always sell them should you wish to go full frame. There is no best lens than the one that can do the job for you at present.

I also plan on 'upgrading' to FF in the future and I have 3 lenses designed for crop (Sigma 30 1.4, Sigma 10-20, & Tamron 17-50).

Cheers

[Bob Atkins]

I think that the Rebel series will stay crop sensor for the forseeable future. Canon (and Canon users) have quite an investment in EF-S lenses and I don't see any reason to change that.

Whether full frame will make it down to the prosumer cameras is more uncertain. The 50D is crop sensor and I'd be 99% certain that the 60D will be crop sensor too. I strongly suspect the same will hold for the 70D. Beyond that my crystal ball gets a bit hazy.

There is no reason why yo ucan't shoot with both formats of course. I do, with a 40D and 5D. I have a couple of EF-S lenses (10-22, 17-85) which I use with the 40D. Sometimes it's good to have a backup camera.

[yayas]

Ok.. it's all clearer now,
Thank you Bob and Luke.

17-50 should be wide enough for me, and I'll keep my 55-250is.
Also for fullframe future verdict.

I also have 420ex. (I'll ask something about the flash in a new thread).

You're all great.

Regards,
Andreas