Questions about a new everyday lens

[Rickay726]

Im looking to pick up a new everyday lens for my rebel xt for xmas i got my 70-200 telephoto and my 100mm macro. but however im still using my 18-55 kit lens. i want something with a wider angle and better zoom. something so that its more then the 18-55 and not as much as my telephoto.

My 2 bestfriends have the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

is there anything thing that is a little better but not ridiculous in price.

i would like to keep it under say $450?

the 24-85 only goes for 309 on b&h.

can someone help me out and let me no some other lens.

Thanks in advance.

-Ricky

 

[miloblithe]

Sigma 17-70 DC Macro? Not much wider than the 18-55, but a better lens all around. Obviously its macro abilities wouldn't interest you as you have the much better 100mm macro for that, but it's an improvement in every way over the 18-55.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

(when it comes out) Tokina 16-50 f/2.8

If you want to stick with Canon, the 17-40mm f/4 is a nice lens. Canon's 17-85 IS lens doesn't seem that impressive, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is over $1000.

 

[sjl]

Im looking to pick up a new everyday lens for my rebel xt for xmas i got my 70-200 telephoto and my 100mm macro. but however im still using my 18-55 kit lens. i want something with a wider angle and better zoom. something so that its more then the 18-55 and not as much as my telephoto.

So are you saying that you want a lens that goes wider than 18mm, but also zooms up to 70mm or so? This may be difficult.

i would like to keep it under say $450?

Hm. I'm assuming that that's US dollars. Amazon sells Canon's 17-85mm zoom for around $517, which is a pretty good price for a reasonable lens, and it's the one I'd recommend as being a reasonable tradeoff between price and performance. You won't be able to go wider than that in the Canon lineup without getting the 10-22mm, which is a shade under $700. Sigma may have something - I honestly don't know - or maybe Tokina.

But frankly, if you're looking for something significantly wider than 18mm, you're talking about an ultra-wide angle lens, which is not going to be cheap. 17mm vs 18mm is hardly a big difference, so if your current lens isn't wide enough, you won't be happy with the 17-85mm (or the 17-40, or other options in that focal length range.)

If you want to stick with Canon, the 17-40mm f/4 is a nice lens. Canon's 17-85 IS lens doesn't seem that impressive, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is over $1000.

The 17-40mm is a very nice lens, and it's one I'd seriously consider if I were buying a camera now; the only issue that may cause Ricky problems is its lack of zoom (which I don't see as necessarily being a problem, but ... well ...). I can see where you're coming from with the comments about the 17-85mm - it does have its issues (amongst them some pretty noticeable barrel distortion, especially at the wide end), but in my opinion, they aren't significant enough to cause grief. Is it L series quality? Probably not. But it is good enough for most people, and it is a definite step up from the 18-55.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is nice, but too expensive for most people, especially since the people most likely to be interested in it are probably also the people most likely to move to a full frame body, where it can't be used.

 

[Grimace]

At the wide end, I'd check out Sigma. I like Canon's glass a lot more for anything long, but Sigma has some good lenses out there that aren't horribly overpriced.

you may want to wait until Canon makes some product announcements at PMA in March. Maybe new lenses...

 

[Abstract]

Sigma 17-70 DC Macro? Not much wider than the 18-55, but a better lens all around. Obviously its macro abilities wouldn't interest you as you have the much better 100mm macro for that, but it's an improvement in every way over the 18-55.

Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

(when it comes out) Tokina 16-50 f/2.8

If you want to stick with Canon, the 17-40mm f/4 is a nice lens. Canon's 17-85 IS lens doesn't seem that impressive, and the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is over $1000.

I'd consider one of those. Sigma also has an 18-50 mm f/2.8 model released.

I have a Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8 and use it as my everyday lens. It's not nearly as wide as 18 mm (yes, there is a big difference), but it does go to 70 mm, which is quite good.

Tokina's 16-50 mm f2.8 sounds interesting to me, but I want to see tests and user reviews after its release. Tokina lenses tend to be sharp and provide enough contrast, but they also show lots of CA.

 

[coldrain]

Like others I am confused about that you want the lens to be wider... yet you then go on mentioning a 24-85mm lens. How is that wider than 18mm?

If you want wider, you have to look at wide angle zooms which are not "every day lenses", for instance the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, or Tokina 12-24mm f4.

If you mean a lens that is wider than the 70mm from your 70-200, the consider the following lenses:
Canon Ef 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II, very affordable ($220), good colour and contrast. A steal.

Sigma 24-70 f2.8. sturdy, good contrast and quite sharp, with constant max. 2.8 aperture over the entire range.

Tamron 28-75 f2.8. If yiu get a good copy, very sharp.

All three lenses are under 450$.

If you want a lens that goes wider, your only option is the Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4.5 macro. The Canon 17-85 f4-5.6 IS USM is not a very good lens, it lacks in contrast making the results too dull for a lens of this price.