Good All Around Lens?

[Reef Pets]

I would like to start taking more outdoors and wildlife photos. This would be something new for me therefore I would like to get some suggestions on what lens would be a great all around lens? I know that there are several professional photographers on the board that could help out...
I have a Canon XSi which seems to do a great job.
Gary

 

[gparr]

Outdoors, wildlife, and all-around typically equates to a bag full of lenses. For most, outdoors means landscapes, which requires wide-angle lenses in the 17- to 50-mm range. Wildlife means long lenses, 300 mm and longer, also expensive. All-around is usually 24-70, 24-105, 70-200. My usual all-around lens is a 24-70 f/2.8.
Gary

 

[Reef Pets]

Hey Gary - I appreciate the information. I suppose that I should have listed a price range since of course they can be SO expensive.
I think the 24-70 and the 24-105 would be nice.
The other question is brand.... I see that there are of course Canon, Tamron and so on. Is it worth the extra cash to purchase a Canon? I had a Sigma in the past and really did not like the quality.
Thanks again!

 

[gparr]

There are two levels of lenses: consumer and professional. The consumer lenses are much more affordable, but you get what you pay for. If you're going to buy consumer-level lenses, buy Canon and nothing else. For example, Sigma's consumer-level lenses are not, IMO, worth the box in which they're packaged.

If you can afford them, buy professional-level lenses. They are build like tanks, use the best glass, and will last forever. And, yes, they are very expensive. Canon's L lenses are as good as they get. Sigma's EX series is also excellent and, in most cases, as good as Canon's L lenses. My collection is mostly L lenses. However, both of my macro lenses are Sigma EX, the 180 and the 50.

When it comes to camera equipment, the lenses are the investment. They are what you keep from camera body to camera body and they determine the quality of the image. The camera bodies, for all that we talk about them, are nothing more than a recording device. Use a cheap lens and you'll deliver a sub-standard image to the recording device. Use a quality lens and that same camera body will record an excellent image, assuming the organism that pushed the button did its job. ;)

Gary

 

[Reef Pets]

Gary - I really do appreciate the information. You are the person that really helped me with taking macros. Of course I cant take the quality macros that you do but I have improved greatly!!
Thanks again! I am off to find a new lens...
Gary

 

[CSJIII]

Canon L lenses are fantastic, don't get me wrong but you wont see as much of a difference from a quality Canon consumer lens to an L lens unless its wide open (aperture), thats when you will notice the biggest difference.
Almost every manufacturer these days has a line of consumer grade lenses and a line of "pro" grade lenses. Some don't give them a special name, some do. Some provide them in a special "finish" while others differentiate with some small cosmetic touch or letter scheme. Canon does so with the designation "L" series.
These lenses utilize ED and Fluorite elements as well as aspherical glass designs where appropriate. For the most part they are quite expensive. Many photographers ask, "Is it worth buying these lenses? Will I notice the difference in my photography?"
If you shoot side-by-side on film with an inexpensive consumer grade lens and an "L" series lens, with both set to f/11, the chances are that you won't see much difference in a small print. But when the lenses are wide-open is when the top quality glass comes into its own. And, if you're using an unforgiving high resolution camera like the EOS 1Ds then L lenses really come into their own. Also, these lenses typically have wider maximum apertures and greater freedom from distortion and flare. Finally, L lenses are more ruggedly constructed and will take the hard knocks meted out by pros who often use their gear under unforgiving conditions.

 

[gparr]

CSJ,
I would disagree with you in your statement that "you won't see much of a difference from a quality Canon consumer lens to an L lens unless it's wide open." Yes, you'll notice a huge difference in performance at either end of the aperture range. No question there. But, at any aperture, you'll notice a distinct difference in sharpness, contrast, and color saturation. Those things result from the much better quality glass and lens design that you mention in your following statement. When you pay for better glass and design, you get better images.

There are Canon consumer (non L) lenses that deliver L-quality images. The old Canon 100 macro, the 85/1.8, and the 50/1.8, to a lesser degree, are three that fall into that category. The rest of the consumer line, while delivering excellent images, cannot match the overall image quality of comparable L lenses.

I'm also not so sure about your suggestion that cameras other than the 1Ds are "forgiving." They all record the image they receive. Granted, the 1Ds records that image at a much higher level, but it's a relatively rare person who can or will invest $8,000+ in a camera body to get that. I have not seen either my 20D or 7D bodies be any more or less forgiving. If I send a good image to the sensor, I get a good result. If it send a poor image, I get a poor result. The camera records what the lens and photographer deliver.

Gary

 

[CSJIII]

If you send a good image through the lens you get a good result, but if you pay thousands for an L lens and send a bad image through it, you will still end up with a bad result. An L lens will not make you a better photographer.

 

[m and m]

You could go with a canon 70-200 F4L, you can find the used for 450 ish there a great lense. I use the F2.8 as a walk around time in most cases i love the length and its one of the best lenses out there IMO i even use it for portrat work with a tube.

 

[Reef Pets]

I appreciate the information guys!! I looked at the L series and they are rather pricey! On the other hand the Sigma EX series are affordable and in the price range that I would like to be.

 

[Hammmerhead]

I have been through a few lenses for my Canon body. Its hard to determine which way to steer you without a little more info. Are you starting to collect lenses or are you wanting a super zoom to try and hit it all? I owned a 18-200mm Canon superzoom that wasnt bad at all considering the range it covered. Of course the optics were not stellar when compared to my 24-105L, but a little PP went a long ways with it. I sold it when I started "collecting" an assortment. My most comonly used lens is the Canon 10-22mm. It starts you at around 16mm on a crop body like you have. It has a very close focusing range and is my favorite for tank and coral shots. The colors and optics are L quality easy, but due to being an ultra wide you will get a tad of distortion like all ultra wides. The 24-105L is a big favorite among all. Colors and optics are superb, constant F4 and its only gets bested by its faster brother the 24-70L F2.8. It is a little long starting at 24mm sometimes though. As far as long glass goes every wants a 70-200 IS. Problem is dropping a grand on one. A very good alternative is the 70-300mm. This is the best buck out there for long range glass. 400 bucks and you can get L quality shots, but not quite 70-200L quality or bokeh. If you are after some primes, check out the Sigma 30mm F1.4 Its the perfect focal length for a crop body. Its super fast and super sharp and very cheap. For my next lens, I want to pick up a 100mm Macro, but for now I am just croping coral shots with my 10-22mm. you also might check out the Canon 17-55mm F2.8. It has 2.8 speed, but a short focal range. Optics are L quality, but it is known to be a dust magnet.