Best walk around lens for my 30d for around $500 +- $50

[alfa147x]

Best walk around lens for my 30d for around $500 +- $50

Thats about it, I do like heavier lens's

thanks
~ alfa


Also
what other manufacturer's lens line compares to canons L's ?

 

[Kelvrick]

The usual suspects are the Tamron 17-50 and 24-70, depending on if you want wider or the reach. 17-50 should be found for like 400, 24-70 closer to 300.

The 17-40L is nice, but a little slow and restricting in its range for me.

If you want a much larger range, then you have the sigma 18-200 OS and the tamron 18-250. The only comparable L I'd say is the 24-105 f4, but thats double your budget.

 

[pennylane]

Almost everybody likes the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I have one and it's great.

Here it is at slrgear: Text

 

[randomlinh]

sigma 30mm if you don't mind being confined to crop bodies (which IMO isn't a bad thing. they should always have a cost advantage. it's not like they're bad cameras).

but primes are very specific.. heh.. the 17-50 tamron is good, but a bit noisy IMO. The sigma 18-50 is worth a look, I liked mine (original non-macro), but wanted the prime more.

The canon 17-85 is worth a look too. I'm not a strong fan of it, but it's versatile.

As far as "L" equivalents... the Sigma EX (w/ HSM) line would probably be it, the ATX Pro from tokina (but only in build, they don't have USM/HSM). Not sure about others.

 

[pennylane]

What about the "L" quality are you thinking of specifically? Glass? Build quality? USM?

The Tamron 17-50mm has great optics, but only "good" build quality and no ultra-sonic motor.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: fanerman91
What about the "L" quality are you thinking of specifically? Glass? Build quality? USM?

The Tamron 17-50mm has great optics, but only "good" build quality and no ultra-sonic motor.

glass

 

[randomlinh]

Oh, I forgot about the tamron 28-75 f/2.8.. that is suppose to be optically great too. Just not very wide if that is important.

 

[Jawo]

Just be like everyone else and get the Tamron 17-50. Its my primary lens and love it, especially the constant f/2.8! Its nice and wide angle, excellent glass, and the petal lens hood is included for $450 new from B&H.

The Canon 17-85 suffers horribly from CA and the pincushion effect.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: Jawo
Just be like everyone else and get the Tamron 17-50. Its my primary lens and love it, especially the constant f/2.8! Its nice and wide angle, excellent glass, and the petal lens hood is included for $450 new from B&H.

The Canon 17-85 suffers horribly from CA and the pincushion effect.

If I learned one thing from my elementary school teachers, it's that you should ALWAYS give in to peer pressure :thumbsup:

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: Jawo
Just be like everyone else and get the Tamron 17-50. Its my primary lens and love it, especially the constant f/2.8! Its nice and wide angle, excellent glass, and the petal lens hood is included for $450 new from B&H.

The Canon 17-85 suffers horribly from CA and the pincushion effect.

what is your take on the
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L ?

The aperture seems a bit slow but looking back to my pictures from my 18 - 55 kit lens 90% of my pictures are take an f/8 ish

 

[PowerRanger]

If you don't take too much wide stuff, maybe the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8? Reviews says its IQ is on par with canon's own 24-70 f/2.8 L. Its also fairly big and heavy.

http://www.photozone.de/Review...ab-test-report--review

If you like a more traditional FOV, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is a widely accepted performer.

http://www.photozone.de/Review...on-test-report--review

There's also the new Sigma 18-125 f/3.5-5.6 OS (image stabilization), but there are not many official reviews for it yet I don't think. This lens would be the best walk-around lens in terms of focal length, but its IQ would probably be lesser than the above two if its anything like the original non-OS version (pretty average).

Regarding the Canon 17-40 f/4 L, if you don't mind the short focal length, this would be my pick.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Jawo
Just be like everyone else and get the Tamron 17-50. Its my primary lens and love it, especially the constant f/2.8! Its nice and wide angle, excellent glass, and the petal lens hood is included for $450 new from B&H.

The Canon 17-85 suffers horribly from CA and the pincushion effect.

what is your take on the
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L ?

The aperture seems a bit slow but looking back to my pictures from my 18 - 55 kit lens 90% of my pictures are take an f/8 ish

SLRGear (you should really check that site out...) says:

Chromatic aberration is moderate at 17mm, very low at 24 and 31mm, and then rises again for large apertures at 40mm. Vignetting is remarkably low, less than 1/4 EV at all apertures and focal lengths, almost non-existent at apertures of f/8 and higher, at all focal lengths 24mm and above. Geometric distortion is a little higher, with about 0.7% barrel distortion at 17mm, although this decreases to only 0.1% pincushion at 40mm. (Again, note that these figures are when used with an APS-C size sensor: Full frame results would doubtless be worse.)

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: alfa147x

Originally posted by: Jawo
Just be like everyone else and get the Tamron 17-50. Its my primary lens and love it, especially the constant f/2.8! Its nice and wide angle, excellent glass, and the petal lens hood is included for $450 new from B&H.

The Canon 17-85 suffers horribly from CA and the pincushion effect.

what is your take on the
Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L ?

The aperture seems a bit slow but looking back to my pictures from my 18 - 55 kit lens 90% of my pictures are take an f/8 ish

SLRGear (you should really check that site out...) says:

Chromatic aberration is moderate at 17mm, very low at 24 and 31mm, and then rises again for large apertures at 40mm. Vignetting is remarkably low, less than 1/4 EV at all apertures and focal lengths, almost non-existent at apertures of f/8 and higher, at all focal lengths 24mm and above. Geometric distortion is a little higher, with about 0.7% barrel distortion at 17mm, although this decreases to only 0.1% pincushion at 40mm. (Again, note that these figures are when used with an APS-C size sensor: Full frame results would doubtless be worse.)

wow sounds good, thanks for the link
I did do some research and seems like the lens im looking for

Any one have any complaints from a 1st hand use?

 

[pennylane]

For what its worth, I'd still go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Going to 50mm is a big deal for me, since that gets to the wide-end of portrait range. The f/2.8 helps with low-light situations.

If that's not a huge deal for you, I guess the Canon will work. It does seem noticeably more expensive. I imagine the image quality is better in the overlapping range though.

 

[themisfit610]

The 17-40 F/4L is amazing. I use mine _all_ the time.

If you really want flexibility, and surprisingly good image quality for cheap, then the Canon 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS is a really good choice.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/rev...0&sort=4&cat=27&page=2

I cut my teeth on this lens (a worn out, dirty old copy that's been to Burning Man 5 years in a row ROFL), and really appreciated its flexibility - along with a tired old 10d.

That being said, when I took the plunge and got a Rebel XTi, I never looked back once I got the 17-40 F/4L. I missed the zoom range, but the wide angle end and the L quality really won me over. I took care of the telephoto element later with my 70-200 F/4L IS, but that was a little too expensive heh...

I don't like third party lenses because of their (usually) sub-par focusing, and poor resale value. Buying Canon lenses is always a safe bet

~MiSfit