Best Walk Around General Purpose Canon Lens

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 01-27-2009, 7:50 AM

What you recommend for a good general purpose lens when I don't want to carry a backpack full of lenses around?

I want something in the Canon "L" series that I can take with me on vacations and such.

I have the following other lenses:
EFS 18-55mm IS Kit Lens
50mm f/1.4 (my favorite lens now)
70-300mm Canon IS (great boat lens)
100-400mm L Series
Tokina 11X18 Wide Angle

(clubmyke) · (clubmyke) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 01-27-2009, 8:09 AM

canon 24-70 f2.8 L (used 90% of the time).

expensive but worth it.

(04outback) · (04outback) **Join Date: Jul 2007** 01-27-2009, 8:13 AM

I am looking at this Sigma 18-200 F3.5-6.3 for my Nikon right now.. I have used one on my Bro in law's D200. It covers a pretty good bit of ground. Not too pricey.
http://www.adorama.com/SG18200EOS.html

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 01-27-2009, 8:32 AM

Clubmyke-

Are you using a full frame or a 1.6 camera with that lens? Do you ever wish for a little more zoom?
I am using a Rebel XSi which I like a lot.

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 01-27-2009, 11:37 AM

17-40L f/4

(steezyshots) · (steezyshots) **Join Date: Feb 2008** 01-27-2009, 4:16 PM

I second the 17 - 40

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 01-27-2009, 4:49 PM

Guys- is the 17-40 going to be OK indoors with no flash? I guess for those kind of shots I could just use the 50mm f/1.4

(phantom5815) · (phantom5815) **Join Date: Jul 2002** 01-27-2009, 5:46 PM

canon 24-70 f2.8 L

Does it weigh a ton like the Nikon version?

(Walt) · (Walt) **Join Date: Jan 2003** 01-27-2009, 5:59 PM

quote:
Guys- is the 17-40 going to be OK indoors with no flash?

A 2.8 lens would be the way to go if your shooting no flash indoors.

(skull) · (skull) **Join Date: May 2002** 01-27-2009, 6:53 PM

I hear the 2.8 version is much heavier and over twice the price!

(evil0ne) · (evil0ne) **Join Date: Sep 2006** 01-27-2009, 7:41 PM

According to Canon it weighs 2.1 pounds.

(mac_attack) · (mac_attack) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 01-27-2009, 9:10 PM

canon 24-70 f2.8 L
or
24-105L.

I have the 24-70 and it's a very sharp copy that always puts a smile on my face.
Never used the 24-105 but the larger range would be nice but you lose the F2.8 for F4.

I had a 17-40 and hardly ever used it. Edge sharpness wasn't to good and wasn't as sharp as my other lenses.

(scott_a) · (scott_a) **Join Date: Dec 2002** 01-27-2009, 9:47 PM

Phantom- yes, the Canon 24-70 f2.8 is a tank.

Thumbs up to the 24-105mm f4 canon lens.

(richd) · (richd) **Join Date: Oct 2003** 01-27-2009, 9:57 PM

My vote is for the 24-105L as well. Nice weight /balance on a 5D or 1 series, quite a bit lighter then the 24-70. Plus there is something about that 24-70 zooming backwards that I could never get used to.

On a 1.6X sensor the 17-40 is very nice.

17-50 f2.8 efs if you have an efs body.

Sigma 18-200 is relatively sharp but AF's like a dog on Canon bodies.

(clubmyke) · (clubmyke) **Join Date: Aug 2004** 01-29-2009, 12:33 AM

rob,

it is used on a 1.6 body (40d).

the lens is little on the heavy side but i dont care. it covers a lot of bases - f 2.8, wide angle, portrait, sharp, and decent zoom.

i sold my 17-40 in favor of the 24-70 and never looked back.