Recommendations for standard Canon lens

Admiral Huddy

Admiral Huddy

Admiral Huddy

Man of Honour
Joined
17 Feb 2003
Posts
29,640
Location
Chelmsford
I'm looking to invest in a decent standard 35mm - 70mm standard lens for a Canon 400D. Probably prepared to spend up to around £300.

Any suggestions or recommendations?

Thanks
 
Admiral Huddy said:
I'm looking to invest in a decent standard 35mm - 70mm standard lens for a Canon 400D. Probably prepared to spend up to around £300.

Any suggestions or recommendations?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Actual 35-70mm or full frame equivalent 35-70mm?

For an equivalent lens, I'll be the first to recommend the Tamron 18-50 f2.8 (equivalent 28-80mm). I own one and it's a great standard zoom.

If you need the long end there's also the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8, which should come in around your budget, is reported to have good centre sharpness but soft corners.

The Canon 15-85mm gets very good reviews although I've not used one. Lots of focal range at the expense of aperture compared to the Tamrons. About £400 secondhand though.

[Edit]- Thinking about it, the Tamron 28-75 is a full-frame compatible lens, so the corner softness issue will be lessened on a crop body like the 400D. There's one on MPB Photographic for £209 secondhand.
 
Last edited:
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 HSM OS is a decent choice.

Its sits nicely in between choosing a constant aperture lens and one with a longer focal length as it has a mixture of both.

Plus it has very good stabilization, excellent build quality and is pretty sharp.
 
The wider range of 17-70 makes that an ideal walk around lens? I was told to stick between 35-70.. Is there any reason why? I'm still a beginner.

edit

CGrieves said:
Actual 35-70mm or full frame equivalent 35-70mm?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Does this mean what ever lens I buy would alter as and when i choose to upgrade to a full frame?
 
The closest you'll get to a 35-70 is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/4L, and that's the best part of a grand. All the cheaper general use zooms are around 17-55mm. I'd go with the Tarmon 17-50 f/2.8 non VC version. Some Sigmas are atrocious for quality control, Tamron don't seem to suffer as much.
 
thanks JanesyB.. I take it that doesn't have IS though?

would i be able to use that on a full frame camera at a later date if I choose to go that route?
 
Admiral Huddy said:
thanks JanesyB.. I take it that doesn't have IS though?

would i be able to use that on a full frame camera at a later date if I choose to go that route?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have IS, the non IS version is sharper than the IS version in the lab but in real world use and normal viewing there really isn't much in it. If it was my money I'd take the IS but others milage may vary.

You won't be able to use these lenses if you go full frame but I wouldn't let that bother you, any full frame walk about you buy now will be a heavy compromise as it will eaither not be very wide or not be very long. Personally I'd by a good second hand crop sensor walk about like the tamron's mentioned or if you can afford it the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS which really is the daddy and then sll it for a tiny loss if you go full frame.
 
If they costed the same I would agree, but the non VC one is about £80 cheaper. That's enough to buy a 50mm f/1.8.

That lens will only work on crop cameras, I wouldn't limit your current lens selection because of something you might do in the future, if your budget was a grand I'd might say otherwise.

If you're not fussed about having a new lens, the one I linked to can be found for £180-£200 second hand.
 
Late to the discussion but what about a Canon 17 - 85 is usm? It isn't as fast as those mentioned but is sharp enough, covers a wide range, the usm focus is good and is does help. They can be had very cheaply as well :)
 
sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC HSM "Macro" (not really a macro, just has a lower min focal distance) the newer version, the non-EX/HSM was horrid. had two of these over the years and were fantastically sharp and great dynamic range on crop body.
 
The Tamron 17-50 has a good following and is a well reviewed lens that always comes out as a fav with people.
 
Sorry should have explained that a 50mm lens on a full-frame body will appear to have a longer focal length on a crop body (1.6x the stated focal length). I say "appear" because in the case of some lenses designed for crop, you can't use them on a full-frame body anyway, so it's a moot point.

But for a walk-around general purpose zoom, you definitely want wider than 35mm. I even feel slightly constrained by 17mm sometimes, and that's when you start the whole process again looking for an ultra-wide angle :)

IS is amazingly useful, but it won't help with moving subjects in low light, and this is where aperture really helps- bear in mind f2.8 lets in double the light of f4. I'd rather have a sharper lens and large aperture over IS, but it's all down to your intended use.

My general kit is currently the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) and the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I did have a 50mm f1.8 but lost it in the Canal in Venice, I don't miss the 50-70mm range as such, but I do miss the aperture. I've got an M42 mount manual focus 50mm Pentax takumar f1.4 hopefully arriving today which should be fun.
 
Last edited:
OS is Sigma's Optical Stabilization (IS), HSM is the focusing motor for quiet quick focusing.

The Sigma 17-70 should be a good walkabout everyday lens due to its features, but I haven't tried one to know what the picture quality is like. I have owned both a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) and 28-75 f2.8, both cost about £180 second hand and really enjoyed using both. :)
 
CGrieves said:
Sorry should have explained that a 50mm lens on a full-frame body will appear to have a longer focal length on a crop body (1.6x the stated focal length). I say "appear" because in the case of some lenses designed for crop, you can't use them on a full-frame body anyway, so it's a moot point.

But for a walk-around general purpose zoom, you definitely want wider than 35mm. I even feel slightly constrained by 17mm sometimes, and that's when you start the whole process again looking for an ultra-wide angle :)

IS is amazingly useful, but it won't help with moving subjects in low light, and this is where aperture really helps- bear in mind f2.8 lets in double the light of f4. I'd rather have a sharper lens and large aperture over IS, but it's all down to your intended use.

My general kit is currently the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) and the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS II. I did have a 50mm f1.8 but lost it in the Canal in Venice, I don't miss the 50-70mm range as such, but I do miss the aperture. I've got an M42 mount manual focus 50mm Pentax takumar f1.4 hopefully arriving today which should be fun.
Click to expand...

So basically avoid lenses that are designed for APS-C cameras ( non full frame)? if intended to use it on a fill frame later.

If I use a 35mm lens on a standard camera it will be 56mm.. but if I use it on a full frame, it is quoted 35mm. Have i got that right?

Steeps said:
OS is Sigma's Optical Stabilization (IS), HSM is the focusing motor for quiet quick focusing.

The Sigma 17-70 should be a good walkabout everyday lens due to its features, but I haven't tried one to know what the picture quality is like. I have owned both a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (non VC) and 28-75 f2.8, both cost about £180 second hand and really enjoyed using both. :)
Click to expand...

Your solution mind of illustrates my original point and what I've been told.. to have a separate wide and standard lens.. Does that have an advantage?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom