Looking for a travel lens for 350D
- Thread starter blithevincent
- Start date
- Status
So, what did u 'heard' abt 17-85 that u wun wanna even give it a go?blithevincent said:
Travel lens? Cover everything? 18-200. Wide to tele. Dun complain abt wide open quality.
Like the others said. Basically, when you travel, you wanna minimise the equipment yet maximise on the focal range, so 18-200 is a good compromise but also, as jsbn mentioned, don't complain about the quality.
Sigma makes a fairly decent 18-200mm lens which you can consider. Not too heavy also but not as fast lah.
If you want wide sweeping landscapes, then just bring a 17-40 and 1 50mm along lor.
Sigma makes a fairly decent 18-200mm lens which you can consider. Not too heavy also but not as fast lah.
If you want wide sweeping landscapes, then just bring a 17-40 and 1 50mm along lor.
17-40L, the best travel lens. I get consistent good pics with it. Optic is sharp, lens is well built and weather sealed. Much better option than 17-85IS. If you up to a 5D or 1D you can still use it. 17-85 got to sell away.
I am currently using the 30D with 17-85 IS USM lens. So far images are sharp and colors vibrant. The IS really helps especially for night shots where there is no time to set up a tripod. Moreover the 35 mm extra reach allows me to zoom in when need be......should be adequate for most purposes
the best advice i ever read about what to get for a lens..
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/356712
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/356712
yehosaphat said:
Me too, unless you find lens switching a hassle which you will just have to get used to. On hindsight, it forces you to plan before hand what type of pictures you wanna take later. Missing out on the middle range? Just use your legs, a lil' sweating goes a long way to keep you fit :sweatsm:
For a single lens option that goes from moderately wide to short telephoto, look at:
EF-S 17-85 IS
pros: IS - its like traveling with a monopod, minus the hassles.
Range is quite good (28-135mm FF equiv).
cons: barrel distortion is quite pronounced at 17mm. It will show up if you are shooting straight lines like architecture. Not really a problem for portraits or nature.
EF 17-40 L
Pros: Outstanding build quality
It's a full frame lens.
Cons: image quality is only slightly improved over the 17-85
Still have some barrel distortion at 17mm.
Limited range (up to 64mm FF equiv - not quite up to traditional portrait length of 80-135mm)
EF-S 17-55 IS
Pros: Reputed to be the sharpest lens in its class for 1.6 crop
IS - see note above
Fast F2.8 constant aperture
Cons: Cost
Weight
Sigma 17-70
I don't know anything about this lens. But you can do your own research for it.
Quite frankly, traveling with only one lens is going to be a compromise and it depends on what you think is most important to you: is it cost, image quality, range, IS, or maybe the ability to share the lens with a FF camera. It is never going to be wide enough, or long enough, or fast enough. For me, the range and IS of the 17-85 won me over. If I go with only one lens, this is my choice.
EF-S 17-85 IS
pros: IS - its like traveling with a monopod, minus the hassles.
Range is quite good (28-135mm FF equiv).
cons: barrel distortion is quite pronounced at 17mm. It will show up if you are shooting straight lines like architecture. Not really a problem for portraits or nature.
EF 17-40 L
Pros: Outstanding build quality
It's a full frame lens.
Cons: image quality is only slightly improved over the 17-85
Still have some barrel distortion at 17mm.
Limited range (up to 64mm FF equiv - not quite up to traditional portrait length of 80-135mm)
EF-S 17-55 IS
Pros: Reputed to be the sharpest lens in its class for 1.6 crop
IS - see note above
Fast F2.8 constant aperture
Cons: Cost
Weight
Sigma 17-70
I don't know anything about this lens. But you can do your own research for it.
Quite frankly, traveling with only one lens is going to be a compromise and it depends on what you think is most important to you: is it cost, image quality, range, IS, or maybe the ability to share the lens with a FF camera. It is never going to be wide enough, or long enough, or fast enough. For me, the range and IS of the 17-85 won me over. If I go with only one lens, this is my choice.
If you've got the budget and prefer to shoot tele, there are a couple of decent 1 lens options.
24-105L
28-135 IS
There are a couple of other active Canon threads on these 2 lenses if you are interested in them. As always, a large range single zoom lens option will always be a compromise just as a zoom is a compromise from primes.
I would probably select from either of those 2 based on budget because I rarely shoot wide and haven't really got into the whole ultrawide thing. The 28-135 is roughly half the price of the L.
24-105L
28-135 IS
There are a couple of other active Canon threads on these 2 lenses if you are interested in them. As always, a large range single zoom lens option will always be a compromise just as a zoom is a compromise from primes.
I would probably select from either of those 2 based on budget because I rarely shoot wide and haven't really got into the whole ultrawide thing. The 28-135 is roughly half the price of the L.
18-200 covers wide to tele. unless you are very free to keep switching between wide and tele . Depending on where you go worry about dust entering whenever you remove the lens.
You can see the photos in my blog, they are all taken by tamron 24-135mm together with Canon 350D. Be amazed by the sharpness. It's going everywhere i go. Even to Mount Kinabalu.
http://leumas.simplytotz.com/wp-gallery2.php
http://leumas.simplytotz.com/wp-gallery2.php
- Status
Similar threads
