2nd lens conundrum

[tarwoona]

Hi everyone,

i have a 50d with a Tamron 18-270 lens. It isnt a bad lens and suits me pretty well given i travel a lot and dont want to cart a huge kit about.

Anyway after a fair bit of investigative work i have found the 18-270 moves from forward focus to back focus through the zoom range, and hence a fair few dud pictures. I'm going to send it back for a warranty job but this will take 3-6 weeks, too long given i only have the one lens.

So i 'need' another lens which is my conundrum. Most of my photography is outside, so light is generally ok, but varies from landscapes etc to children, pets etc.

I did think to begin with a 50mm would be a decent move, maybe the 50mm f1.4 @ $400-500 (grey import). But now dont know if maybe the 24-105mm f4 @ $1,100ish may be a bit wiser and be more versitile. (or do I just have a case of L series lens envy). May i also add $$ isnt a huge issue, but as my wife says i am as tight as a fishes posterior.

Does anyone have any thoughts on what i do?

Cheers,
Steve

[PH005]

Sounds like a lot of us, confused! I would recommend a 50 1.8 ( can pick up a brand new one for about $130 ), Then keep thinking about which lens should be your next "Big" step. The 1.8 is a great little lens and you wont worry about the cost if you end up not useing it much.

[RaoulIsidro]

Have a look at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM average RRP $535 at some shops.
It has image stabilization and is a USM lens, and more importantly, it is a Canon. :)
I have very low regard for 3rd party lenses (it's just me) ;)
Best to the new lens!:th3:

[Allann]

If your not too worried about the money, I can highly recommend you take the plunge into the l world and get any of the following:
24-70 2.8; all round great lens
24-105 4; not quite as good (in my opinion, but the is a great thread here showing the difference to the 24-70)
70-200; any of them. Not as good on the wide side for landscape, but really versatile, may never come off your camera once purchased.

Before you take the plunge though, hire one or two for the weekend and give them a try. Easier to make up your mind that way.

[unistudent1962]

Have a look at the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM average RRP $535 at some shops.
It has image stabilization and is a USM lens, and more importantly, it is a Canon. :)
I have very low regard for 3rd party lenses (it's just me) ;)
Best to the new lens!:th3:
I have found the 17-85 to be a great lens, not the sharpest around but a good versatile lens none the less.
It is a big step up in quality from the 18-55 kit lens.
If you're on a budget check eBay, good examples can be had for $300-$350. Just make sure you ask questions, especially about it's age, usage, etc.

[tarwoona]

Thanks to everyone,
i'll take a look at the 17-85.
The 24-70 is certainly worth considering but probably the price will beat me.

cheers

[atky]

Thanks to everyone,
i'll take a look at the 17-85.
The 24-70 is certainly worth considering but probably the price will beat me.

cheers
Dos it have to be canon sigma do two 24 70 2.8s

[Roosta]

Tarwoona, If you look just below your post on the Canon Link, you will see I posted the same sort of questions re General Purpose Lens, got some great feedback,

Best of luck, too many choises, but the two CANON 24-70 or 24-105 seem like great options, and yes, maybe L envy. But who cares.

[Allan Ryan]

maybe a canon 100 Macro :)
fairly cheap, $500-$600 I think, good for portrait and macro
lots of fun things to shoot if you like bugs....
I haven't got mine yet:(

[Bercy]

I think the salient point is that you want a versatile travel lens. If I read between the lines, you do not want a drag a trolley full of lenses about. I have a 28-105 Canon that stays on most of time. It light, not obstrusive and unlike a big white 70-200L, doesn't attract attention. The L series 24-105, F4, lets a bit more light in across the telephoto range and I would hope has better optics. The purpose 90% of the time should dictate use, I reckon.

[tarwoona]

Thanks Bercy (and everyone else)

You've hit the nail on the head, i think. The 18-270 was bought to serve a purpose and although it does perfectly, it isnt as good as hoped (and now dont expect it to be even after a warrenty job hopefully impoves things). i dont have the space or enthusiasm to cart a bag full of lenses about, particulaly given i travel mostly for work with a bag full of work stuff anyway (Far East Russia, India, China, Indo, USA to name a few and yes they are ALL third world countries where excess bags doesnt work).
Time to go cap in hand with a good excuse to the minister for warfare for an understanding as to why i have a new 24-105. Sorry put that wrongly, she wont understand but may consent to me 'blowing' $1,100.
Good luck Stephen.

Cheers,
Steve

[Arg]

Remember Steve the 24-105 won't have any wide angle in its zoom range on your 50D. If that's your goal, OK, but if you want a wide-to-tele zoom of better quality than the old superzoom the best options are the 15-85 (overall) or the 17-55 (if f2,8 constant aperture is useful to you).