Jump to content
All rounder Lens - Canon
22 replies to this topic
Posted 30 July 2012 - 03:53 PM
Not sure if anyone remembers but I was asking about 6 months ago about which camera to buy (talking about my sister-in-laws fantastic Nikon D7000). Anyway I finally bought a camera a few weeks ago and I am now the proud owner of a Canon EOS 600D. I went with more of an entry level camera as I decided it was more important to spend money on len's than the camera itself for what I wanted it for (just taking shots of family and our life - holidays etc).
Anyway I am now after some lens advice. I only bought the camera body as I had a old kit lens for my old Canon SLR which I can use and I also bought a 50 mm 1.8 as I wanted to take great shots of my kids. Anyway I LOVE the 50 mm lens and it's getting GREAT shots but my old kit lens is horrible with really faded out colour (I think it's not in great shape, may have scratch's etc).
Anyway I would like to buy a lens that I can use as an all rounder, so something that I can take on holidays and use when I want to have some zoom or take a photo of something closer up (I have noticed with my 50 mm I can't get certain shots if there are things behind me or in small spaces).
I was looking at the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Lens but not sure if it fits everything I need or whether there is a better lens people consider as an 'all rounder'.
So if money was no object, what is the best 'all rounder' lens you would buy for a Canon?
Posted 30 July 2012 - 07:21 PM
I have the 24-105 and it spends a great deal of time on my camera.
It really depends on the main use. I know a lot of people have the ?24-70 I think it is, but that again limits even more!
I just got the 70-300 L series, and I LOVE it, BUT it is darn heavy (less than a 70-200 L IS but heavy still!).
If you main use is walking around general photography with a bit of kids in the park phootgraphy etc, I would get the 24-105, along with the 50mm you already have.
Then if you get more into it later you may want to consider a super wide angle (16-35/17-40) or a super telephoto - great for bird shots and wildlife far away, but these can come later if you find you need them.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:17 PM
Thanks Cat, good to know it spends a lot of time on your camera! I have been told to look at tamron and sigma too but then another friend said stay away from them, so confusing!
It really is mainly for kids photos and so we can use it if they are far away in a park or for some scenic shots. No plans to get into bird watching or sports photography so don't think I'd need a huge zoom anytime soon.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:26 PM
I love my 24-105, it stays on my camera most of the time also.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 09:30 PM
I think the 24-105 length is great and would be perfect for everyday shooting (I have a 28-75 that stays on my camera most of the time). The only thing I wouldnt like is being limited to f4. If you are taking a lot of portrait shots and want that beautiful blurred out background then you might be a bit limited with only f4. Though you also have the 50mm lens, and that is has the ability to go below f4, so you could always use that when you want to take portraits.
I tend to agree with your friend, I have both a tamron and a sigma and have had focusing issues with both and needed to sned them back for calibration. My 2 canon lenses have been perfect straight out of the box.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:52 PM
I also have the 24-105mm 4L which is pretty much my everyday lens. The 24-70 2.8 is really nice, but it is a bit heavier and doesn't zoom as far as the 24-105, plus if you want the larger aperture you have the 50mm that can do that. So I'd probably go with the 24-105. I only own canon lenses so can't really comment on the sigma or tamrons.
Edited by fire-truck, 31 July 2012 - 05:47 PM.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:03 PM
Thanks everyone, you've given me the confidence to go ahead and spend the money, looks like I won't regret it
Posted 31 July 2012 - 12:48 PM
TBH on a crop camera, 24mm is a limited for landscape so I don't consider it an all purpose lens. You would need at least 18mm to have a wide landscape on a crop. Just putting it out there.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 01:11 PM
I agree with rbat - I shoot a lot at 17mm with my 17-50mm lens and I think I'd miss that part of the range more than I'd miss length at the other end.
But, I can't think of a lens that goes from wide angle (on a cropped sensor camera) to a longer zoom that also has a fixed aperture...
Posted 31 July 2012 - 01:22 PM
I'm using a 28-135 (f3.5-5.6) IS USM as my "everyday" lens. It's much sharper and gives richer colour than the included kit lenses that came with the body (EOS 400D), and does the job >90% of the time. I get a crisper photo at 135mm cropped in than I do with the 300mm kit lens! The only drawbacks are that it's nearly a kilo, and after 4 years and 18'000 photos the USM motor has worn out.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:05 PM
TBH, I'd go for the 24-70mm over the 24-105mm. F4 is really restrictive indoors, f2.8 will give much nicer background blur/bokeh
Posted 31 July 2012 - 02:51 PM
I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 as my all purpose lens. I also have the 50mm f/1.4 and it hardly gets used. I agree with rbat & undomesticmumma that 24mm just isn't wide enough on a crop sensor if you want to do some landscape.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:08 PM
Hmm ok feeling confused now given I don't fully understand photography talk. My old kit lens (the one I am replacing) is a 28-80mm which says 1.3f on it. I don't mind not getting blurry backgrounds, I just want a lens that can zoom enough for when we are doing scenic stuff or getting my kids at a playground etc without having to get too close, but also takes good quality shots with great colour (my kit lens is so dull and the colour is nothing like I get on my 50mm).
What other lens would compare to the one I am trying to replace (but are quality)?
ETA: Oh and I don't want anything too heavy, the reviews I read on the 24-105 said it was lighter than others so easy to carry round as an all rounder lens.
Edited by peppersmum, 31 July 2012 - 04:10 PM.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:27 PM
Pepersmum - your lens is probably a f/3.5-5.6. Which means it doesn't have a constant aperture all through the range which the other lenses that pp's are talking about have and this generally means not as good in terms of image quality. A thing many photographers do when deciding on a new lens is to go look back through the exif data on their photos and see at what focal length that most of their photos were taken and that way it will give you an indication if you take more at a wider angle - or more at the longer end of your lens and the extra length of the 105 might be better for you.
Edited by ILBB, 31 July 2012 - 04:28 PM.
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:36 PM
Wow great information ILBB, couldn't understand a word of it but I went and checked my photos anyway and sure enough most of the photos I am taking with that lens are 4 and above (most at 5-6 range). Oh and yes you are right it is a f3.5-5.6.
So what does this mean for what lens I should be looking at? It's still double dutch to me but I just want to get the lens that will suit me best ....
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:40 PM
Sorry Peppersmum I should have been clearer - at what mm are you shooting them at - say 78mm or 34mm etc. The 5 and 6 are the aperture you are shooting them at. So you are often shooting wide open for your lens - but at how many millimetres - which will help to determine how long (or short) your next lens should be!
Posted 31 July 2012 - 04:51 PM
ok thanks for explaining that again, ok looks like I shoot mainly around 50-70 and rarely at the extreme ends of that lens, but I am only going off not much data as it was the lens for my SLR and I have only been using it for my DSLR since I got it last month and have mainly used my 50mm.
Posted 01 August 2012 - 07:33 AM
If you want to shoot mainly landscapes and shots where you are trying to fit a lot of the scene in, then getting a lens that starts at 17mm will be helpful. But if you mainly take pics of people eg the kids at the playground then the 24-105 is perfect. I have a 17-40 lens and I never use it unless we are going somewhere scenic eg a lookout.
Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:01 AM
Peppersmum I too just got a canon 600d and this thread has come at the right time. Do you mind if I ask a question or two?
Firstly I don't get the f speak at all the above post telling you to get 17 for this and for that is great
I love taking photos with a blurry background I have the lens that came with the camera a 18-55 (I really have no idea what that means) what type of lens gives a great blurry background is it a macro? I can get a good photo if I am zoomed in really close and or change the settings around but if possible I would like even more blur.
So far I have. 17-40 and a 24 - 105 on my birthday list
Posted 01 August 2012 - 08:56 AM
Thanks toomanytoys Yep not so much interested in landscapes, just people and if something pretty is in the background then great but not for just landscapes.
Well I have bitten the bullet and I have ordered the 24-105, excited now!!
MrsLexiK I don't understand much of the talk either, but slowly learning more. To get a good blurred background for portrait type shots so cute shots of kids etc (which is what I wanted) then the 50mm 1.8 lens is a perfect start. This is where I got mine but there are other good websites that have it similar price: Cameras Direct 50mm 1.8 lens. I liked that it wasn't too pricey for a starter lens, so a good step before you part with bigger dollars
I don't know the technical stuff on blur, so maybe someone else can answer that (re: macro etc)!
Edited by peppersmum, 01 August 2012 - 09:07 AM.
Posted 01 August 2012 - 11:48 AM
I love taking photos with a blurry background I have the lens that came with the camera a 18-55 (I really have no idea what that means) what type of lens gives a great blurry background is it a macro?Any lens shooting wide open (or at least with an aperture of around 5.6 or smaller) will give your background an out of focus "blurry look". Lenses that have a constant aperture throughout their range (for example 2.8, 1.4 or 4) will generally provide better image quality due to the construction and optics of the lens. The "f" refers to the aperture and how much light is being let in to the camera from the lens. So someone talking about having a "wide open" lens is with the aperture open to its maximum capacity. However, the tricky bit comes in that a wide open lens has a small number (for example f 2.8). And a lens with an aperture of say f 22 is actually closed down to its smallest capacity (thus letting in the smallest amount of light). So for a start this numbering system is quite confusing until you get your head around it. A great place to start is to read a book called "Understanding Exposure" by Bryan Peterson as it really is quite clear about the exposure triangle (shutter speed, aperture and iso) and how they all interact.
Edited by ILBB, 01 August 2012 - 11:49 AM.
Posted 01 August 2012 - 04:24 PM
Thanks peppersmum - that looks like a good lens, now I want the 1.4 I have also just added some lenses to my list whoops.
ILBB - thanks for that, I think I *may* get the apature and f number now. Thank you for your help.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
Top 5 Viewed Articles