Good, but low cost all around lens

cybercox

Hello, I am somewhat new to photography and I am looking to upgrade my Canon kit lens (18-55). I would like to get one lens that gives me nice quality for all around photo shooting. (ie.. landscapes, portraits, and sports.) I don't have a huge budget thus the reason to try and stick with one lens. I would like to be in the $300-$400 price range, if that's possible. Thanks for all suggestions.

ziggy53

The standard range zoom lens that pops to mind is the Tamron SP 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD IF. Very good image quality, excellent center sharpness at all apertures, constant aperture and fast enough AF speeds, all for around your budget.

Great review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Tamron-17-50mm-f-2.8-XR-Di-II-Lens-Review.aspx

Art Scott

Sigma's 17-70 f2.8-4 with optical Stabilization......I have heard tons of really good things about this lens and if I wasn't heading to full frame I would be putting it in my bag to replace my Nikon 18-70........

ThatCanonGuy

Any focal length can be used for landscapes, I assume you mean wide though. Sports usually requires a telephoto lens. The only lens I can think of is the Canon 18-200, and its quality is so low I can't recommend it. I think you should go with the Tamron that Ziggy mentioned, or maybe the Sigma that Art mentioned. Those lenses will do landscapes and portraits. Maybe some sports, but they're not telephoto. I would say pick portraits and one other of your three requirements. Say, if you chose portraits and landscapes, the Tamron or Sigma would do. If you chose portraits and sports, then I'd say pick up a used Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS ($500, but super-high-quality). Another option is to find a used Tamron 17-50 (~$300) and add a 100mm f2 (~$300). The 100 f2 would be your sports lens, but it doesn't provide as much verstility as the 70-200.

Get a 17-50 or 17-70, or a 70-200. All can do portraits, the first two can do landscapes + a little bit of sports, and the last can do sports + a little bit of landscapes.

Art Scott

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

Any focal length can be used for landscapes, I assume you mean wide though. Sports usually requires a telephoto lens. The only lens I can think of is the Canon 18-200, and its quality is so low I can't recommend it. I think you should go with the Tamron that Ziggy mentioned, or maybe the Sigma that Art mentioned. Those lenses will do landscapes and portraits. Maybe some sports, but they're not telephoto. I would say pick portraits and one other of your three requirements. Say, if you chose portraits and landscapes, the Tamron or Sigma would do. If you chose portraits and sports, then I'd say pick up a used Canon 70-200 f4 non-IS ($500, but super-high-quality). Another option is to find a used Tamron 17-50 (~$300) and add a 100mm f2 (~$300). The 100 f2 would be your sports lens, but it doesn't provide as much verstility as the 70-200.

Get a 17-50 or 17-70, or a 70-200. All can do portraits, the first two can do landscapes + a little bit of sports, and the last can do sports + a little bit of landscapes.

... but I would opt for 2 lenses one of the 17/18-70/50 and a 70-200f2.8....again I am partial to Sigma and depending on how much extras you need (IS and all that) you could pick up a very sharp Sigma for under $500......so for un $1K you could have a really nice set up for portraits, landscapes and sports............

cybercox

Thanks for all the input. On the Tamron 17-50, would you recommend with VC or without? The review mentions the non VC has much better image quality. Thanks again.

Qarik

I am afraid you are simply asking for too much. Sports are typically telephoto (at least 200mm range). Landscape if typically wide angle (10-24mm range). Potraits are usually in teh middle from 50-135mm. To get all that for $300 is impossible. You will have to go with at least 2 lens..one general purpose like the above mentioned tamron and one for sports later if/when you can afford it. That said, the tamron is not going to be significant upgrade over your kit lens. *shrug*

If you are truly married to the idea of one lens then you should save up and get one of these 18-200mm lens which gieve you just okay results in everything you are interested in. Otherwise..save save save for something like 24-120 f4.

Art Scott

The 24-120 does not necessarily need to a constant aperture lens...the G 3.5-5.6 can be had for under $350 off ebay.......I just did this week.......also if you do not need the extra 50mm of the 24-120 go for a Sigma 24 - 70 f2.8....I have never had a bad Sigma lens and they are so much more less expensive than Nikons and have worked just great for me.....for wedding, landscapes and portraits and some sports that I play at shooting ( I have shot at a very minor league BaseBall games, some soccer, some little league football and baseball, softball and such.......Sigma has never let me down..........

Molotov Everything

Sounds like you're thinking the same way I was back when I first got a DSLR. I started photography in high school and we shot 35mm slide film, and the teacher wanted us to use cameras that were totally manual. In college, I bought a Nikon D80 and my film lenses couldn't use any of the automatic features the D80 offered and I didn't have much disposable income so I figured I'd do the same thing, try to get one cheap lens that can do it all.
I ended up with a 28-200mm f/3.8-5.6. While it does 'everything' it doesn't do any of it particularly well. Shooting at f/5.6 at the long end of the zoom pretty much sucks. Now it sits on a shelf collecting dust and I wish I had just saved the money until I could get something better. Since leaving college and having the money to buy other lenses, the best thing I could think of to do with it at this point is gut the housing and turn it in to a rocks glass or something, I can't remember the last time I actually took a picture with it.

paddler4

would like to get one lens that gives me nice quality for all around photo shooting. (ie.. landscapes, portraits, and sports.)

Doesn't exist. That's why people buy SLRs--to be able to change lenses for different applications.

As a general rule, you will find that most of the very highly recommended zooms have zoom factors of only about 3 -- e.g., the Tamron 17-50 and 28-75, and all of the Canon 70-200s. When zoom ranges get longer, you start getting compromises. Some lenses with longer ranges handle those pretty well (e.g., EF-S 15-85), but many don't, and when you get to the 'super zoom' range, you pay a real price in quality.

The 17-50 non-VC (optically better than the VC) that Ziggy mentioned is a standard for people who want a similar range to the kit lens but a faster, constant aperture. I don't have one but have often considered it. However, is having a better lens with a similar range the most useful thing for you? If you have the newer kit lens, it is actually quite good, despite its cheap build. (the old one, used through the XTi model, was not very good.) So if you don't need a faster lens in that range, you might be better off keeping that lens and looking for a second that does something that that lens won't do. E.g., maybe a budget telephoto, like the EF-S 55-250. All depends on what you want to shoot.