Walk around lens suggestion

[sanjosedave]

Have a 60d. Looking for hands-on recommendation for a walk around lens.

Ideally, it would be 14-200, a little more or a little less, wide to ?zoom. Double ideally, it would be 2.8, but I think I would asking too much. Thx

[Tijn]

The Canon 15-85mm is the widest-range but still-sharp crop camera lens. Other lenses such as 18-200 will suffer a lot in the image quality department.

Get a Canon 15-85mm and a 70-200L of your favorite flavour, or 70-300L. For portability combined with versatility I'd recommend the 70-200 f/4L IS or the 70-300L IS. Again very useful wide range, up to date IS, and it slides back into a small portable package.

[KreutzerPhotography]

I prefer my new 16-35 f/2.8 II on a crop body. It makes a great wide to standard lens.

I also like my 70-200 f/4 IS because of the power but it feels too close too often.

I tend to carry both when I am out so I am ready for anything. But if I had to chose one it would likely be the 16-35.

[Synomis192]

Well, if your budget could handle it, get the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8. The wode aperature makes it extremely usefull in low light situations or situations where you cant use flash. The Canon 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is also a good lens. Its long range lets you take landscape shots and portraits without switching lens.

If those lens are kind of out of your reach. Try the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Its really sharp in the center but there is reports of shotty lens builds. But none the less it's price range is very attractive.

[YellowJersey]

I shot for years using the 24-105 on my old 10D and found it an excellent lens. It suffers a bit on the wide end due to the crop, but still satisfied my needs well.

[DeadPixel]

+1 on the 15-85, I bought this for my T3i as a walkabout lens - 15 is wide enough for everything I've wanted so far and the 85 gives me enough zoom (if I can't zoom with my feet that is) that I'm not always searching for a zoom lens.

Note, I'm not a professional by any means, but I've been very satisfied by the quality of pictures I've taken with this lens.  This was my first real upgrade from the kit lens, and it was was a welcome upgrade - faster to focus and nearly silent with a smooth feeling zoom compared to the 17-55 kit lens. 

I use an EF 70-300 for my greater zoom needs.

DeadPixel

[pj1974]

+1 for the Canon 15-85mm IS USM.

I own this lens. It's great as an all purpose. I find the zoom range of the kit lenses (18-55mm) too restrictive... and while I like the low light capability of the 17-55mm f2.8, it's still too short on the tele-end for my liking. Plus the 2mm on the wide end DOES make a difference.

My copy of the 15-85mm is sharp wide open, good corner quality, great contrast and nice colour. With the 4-stop IS and USM, it's a very good 'go to' / walk around lens.  Good wide angle for landscapes, tele-end for portraits (sweet bokeh for a zoom). It also has decent macro capability for flowers, larger insects (obviously not true 1:1) possibility.  My 15-85mm gets the most general use.

The other lenses I have are the 70-300mm L (yes it pairs with the 15-85mm very well as a '2 lens travel kit). Also have the Canon 100mm USM macro, Sigma 10-20mm and kit 18-55mm.  Let us know your decision, sanjosedave.  I think the 15-85mm would work very well on your 60D.  (It works splendidly on my 7D).

Best regards and happy photography.

Paul

[papa-razzi]

If you are shooting a lot indoors, then the 17-55 f/2.8 can't be beat.  The fast aperture combined with IS gives you the ability to shoot without a flash for most things.  In my opinion it is the best general purpose lens for a crop camera.  If you are just getting one lens, this is the one to get.  I have several L lenses, and this is as good a lens as any of them.

I would recommend it over the 15-85 because I think you will find the 5.6 f-stop on the long end of the 15-85 a little restricting indoors (I don't like to use flash much).  The difference in focal range isn't as big as it looks, and the constant f/2.8 makes a huge difference.

If you shoot more outside or really want a longer focal range, then I suggest the 24-105 f/4L.  Indoors, it is just one stop slower than the 17-55 f/2.8, and you can usually get buy with bumping up the ISO one stop.

For the long end, I would get either the 70-300 L, or the 70-200 L (several flavors to choose from here based upon price and need).  If budget is an issue, the non-L 70-300 is a good lens.

[Jamesy]

If you are shooting a lot indoors, then the 17-55 f/2.8 can't be beat.  The fast aperture combined with IS gives you the ability to shoot without a flash for most things.  In my opinion it is the best general purpose lens for a crop camera.  If you are just getting one lens, this is the one to get.  I have several L lenses, and this is as good a lens as any of them.

I agree with this - you won't be disappointed with the 17-55.

[Random Orbits]

Have a 60d. Looking for hands-on recommendation for a walk around lens.

Ideally, it would be 14-200, a little more or a little less, wide to ?zoom. Double ideally, it would be 2.8, but I think I would asking too much. Thx

What's the budget?

[katwil]

With any lens that starts out below 20mm and ends up above 100mm, there’s a trade-off between range and image quality/ sharpness.  I have a Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS and a Tamron AF 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC PZD LD.  While those lenses would come close to the specs you’ve mentioned for range, image quality is average, at best.  If I had to choose between those two I would opt for the Tamron due to its longer range and smaller profile.

Having said that, the aforementioned 15-85 is a much sharper lens, but it doesn’t get you anywhere close to the range you want.  If you can get by with two lenses, you may want to pair the 15-85 with one of Canon’s 70-200 models.

[solarpos]

If you took 200 grams off the 24-70L it would be the perfect walkaround. It's my favorite lens yet it's a bit cumbersome so as a second choice I'd say the 16-35 but find it a bit short on FL. What I'd buy is a 17-40 if it came in 2.8. Too bad some of the best zoom ranges are f/4.

[dok]

I previously possessed the 17-55 f/2.8 and then the 15-85 instead.
I found the 17-55 really amazingly sharp and of great quality. But beware, if don't like to protect your lens with uv filter (like me), it will probably suck dust inside in a couple a month. It happened to me (and I'm really cautious with my lenses), a "huge" white dust right inside in the middle of the lens. I sweated like a pig when I managed to open the lens to clean it but I was not prepared to do it one more time two month later so I sold it and replaced it with the 15-85 (not the 17-85). While it optically less amazed me, it was a very good lens with really valuable 2mm plus on the wide side and of course 30mm more on the other side. The IS is also excellent.

[Jamesy]

I have the 17-55 and perhaps I got a good copy because I have not been plagued by dust like some of the other copies floating around. I have had a UV on it since day one.

It is my understanding that dust enters through the part of the lens that expands and contracts for zoom rather than through the from element area.