# Help me choose: EF lens for 60D



## Ido (Dec 12, 2012)

Hi all,

I'm planning my next purchase and I got confused after reading way too many reviews, so I though it would be best to ask you guys 

I own a 60D with only one lens- the 40mm 2.8, and I think it's time for me to get a new one.
The 40mm is pretty awesome lens for its price, and it's so lightweight that you can carry it all day long, however, I found the focal length a bit too long when mounted on a crop sensor for everyday shots and as a walk-around lens, and it will probably be my backup lens.


Worth to mention that for me, photography is a hobby, and I'm not a pro.
I shoot all kind of styles - from street photography to landscapes and portraits (both in daylight and in lowlight environment)

I though about a versatile lens, something that will allow me to use wide angle to somewhat telephoto.

I thought about one of these lenses:


EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - Because I like the wide angle ( and I don't think the 17-35 justify the price tag)
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM - Looks like a very good range coverage, but I lose some of the wide angle.
EF 24-70mm f/4.0L - Looks good on the paper, but It's still not available, and I have an opportunity to purchase a lens now.

My budget is around 1200$ (give or take ~100\200$) 

What would you get? are there any non-L lens that might be worth checking out? (I think I will upgrade to FF in the future, so I don't want to invest in EF-S lens.

Thanks for any assistance 
Ido


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 12, 2012)

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS would be my 1st choice, but you mentioned FF in the future.

About the new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC II, if you on lower budget side?
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=7030.0


----------



## ABO_Foto (Dec 12, 2012)

I have the 24-105 as my main lens and I couldn't be happier. I find it gives a good range plus the IS is a great feature to have.


----------



## Random Orbits (Dec 12, 2012)

I would suggest getting a 17-55 f/2.8 used/refurbished. Getting it used/refurbished will protect you from losing any/much when you sell it to move to full frame. It will give you better low light capability than the f/4 options you listed. DOFs are deeper with crop so wider max apertures are more critical for APS-Cs than FF. 24mm on a crop is not very wide, which can be be limiting for some landscapes.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Dec 12, 2012)

Ido said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm planning my next purchase and I got confused after reading way too many reviews, so I though it would be best to ask you guys
> 
> ...



As the always eloquent Neuro put it:



neuroanatomist said:


> IMO, that's like stating, "I refuse to buy the BMW 760Li because it doens't have a towing package option, and I may buy a boat someday." I recommend getting the best lens for what you need to shoot, today, with the body that you have. Now, if you're getting a FF camera next month, that's one thing. But "I may go FF someday, maybe..." isn't a good reason to choose a less appropriate lens, IMO.
> The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS fit the focal range definition of general purpose on APS-C, and offer excellent IQ (better than the L-series lenses listed above, with the probable exception of the 24-70 II, when comparing them on the same APS-C camera).
> Both of those lenses hold their value like L-series lenses - buy one, use it for 2-3 years, and the way lens prices are increasing, you won't take much of a loss (I sold the 10-22mm a year after I bought it, for $50 less than I paid for it new from Amazon).


----------



## Mendolera (Dec 12, 2012)

17-55 F2.8 if you plan on having crop for at least another year or two because its a fast lens with IS, however I had the 24-105L with my 60D and thought it was great for both crop and FF. Its probably my favorite lens even more so then the 50, 70-200 or 100-400L I have in my bag.

At 38mm (FF equivalent its a tad long for landscapes), whereas the 27mm (FF equivalent on the EF-S is a bit wider)


----------



## preppyak (Dec 12, 2012)

Based on you wanting versatility, I'd suggest this combo

15-85 and two primes (probably 24 or 28mm, and 85mm, to compliment your 40mm): Allows you to go wider than most combos for landscapes, and unless you are a dedicated landscape person, it'd probably be wide enough. And the rest of the range would be great as a walk-around, perfect for any shots in daylight. And the primes give you night/street/portrait versatility. The 24-105 and new 24-70 just won't be wide enough for landscape/architecture work, at all.

17-55, 85mm prime: This would cover you for low-light in general, and the 17-55 would probably rarely leave your body. Your choice on the prime, I guess you could go with the 30mm f/1.4 if you find you like wider, or the 50mm f/1.4. I figured 85mm would be for tight portrait while the 17-55 covers the rest.

I know you said no EF-S, but, you own a crop body, and unless you can say with certainty you'll be going full-frame in the next few months, avoiding EF-S is just gonna cost you shots. The 17-55 is probably exactly the lens you'd want, honestly.


----------



## ahab1372 (Dec 12, 2012)

Yep, one of the two suggested EF-S lenses. The 17-55 has the wider aperture, the 15-85 is longer and wider and leaves you a little more budget for additional primes, tripod, filters, travel, etc (looks like a tele zoom is not what you want next).
Worry about FF when you actually by the FF camera


----------



## robbymack (Dec 12, 2012)

I never got the whole, I may buy a FF so I don't want EFS lens argument. You may as well enjoy some of the advantages of the crop sensor such as lighter, generally lower priced, great lenses like the 17-55 f2.8 IS or 10-22 or 15-85. For the 60D your first choice should be the 17-55 f2.8IS. If the 17-55 gives you sticker shock buy used or look at the 15-85. Then get an 85 1.8. Any of those hold their value well so if you want new buy with confidence, or buy used and you may even make a buck in the long run.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2012)

Ummm...yeah, what I said.  ;D


----------



## rpt (Dec 13, 2012)

If I had bought the 7D or 60D instead of the 5D3, I'd have got the 15-85. If you are going to be shooting a lot in low light then you can think of the 17-55 f2.8...


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 13, 2012)

Ido said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm planning my next purchase and I got confused after reading way too many reviews, so I though it would be best to ask you guys
> 
> ...


Out of your 3 choices, 24-105 f/4 L IS is without a doubt the most versatile lens .... also it is within your allocated budget along with a good quality filter or two (UV or ND or Circular Polarizing filter). 
The 24-70 f/4 L IS is new and will cost more than your budgeted amount.
The 17-40 f/4 L is a great lens and well within your budget but very limited zoom range ... I take a lot of group photos and the 24 mm on 17-40 (even on 60D & 7D) had barrel distrotion which I did not like ... so I sold mine to get the 16-35 f/2.8 L (which also has barrel distortion at 24mm on 60D & 7D) 
In 2010 I had decided to go full frame and kept bulidling my small collection of EF lenses, at that time I only 7D & 60D ... although I had the 17-55 f/2.8 IS lens I preffered to exclusively use 24-105, on my 60D & 7D, for the following reasons:
1. No barrell distortion, even at 24mm on 60D & 7D
2. Very sharp group photos & landscape photos etc
3. Amazing "star effect" on street lights at narrow apertures
4. Excellent zoom range ... my entire England, Scotland vacation was shot only with 24-105 and I never missed a shot ... IS was awesome, never had a blurry shot even while taking pictures from the Big Bus (tour bus) on the move.
5. It looked sexy on 60D and even more sexier 7D  ... it still looks sexy on my 5D MK III.
90% of all the photos I had made with 60D & 7D were while using 24-105 f/4 L IS lens.
Unlike the EF-S lenses, the EF L lenses come with a lens hood.
Even when you do go full frame in the future, you will most likely find this lens on the camera most of the time due to its versatility.
You may also want to consider Dylan777's excellent suggestion i.e. Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC ... great bang for the buck, low light capability and is full frame compatible.
Happy shopping!


----------



## ddashti (Dec 13, 2012)

Going with the 17-40 would be a great choice. It's a good lens to have when you upgrade to FF, and it performs quite nicely. Its build is quite solid, and it's water/dust resistant. Plus, it takes 77mm filters, which is what many lenses take!
Hope this helps


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Dec 13, 2012)

robbymack said:


> I never got the whole, I may buy a FF so I don't want EFS lens argument. You may as well enjoy some of the advantages of the crop sensor such as lighter, generally lower priced, great lenses like the 17-55 f2.8 IS or 10-22 or 15-85. For the 60D your first choice should be the 17-55 f2.8IS. If the 17-55 gives you sticker shock buy used or look at the 15-85. Then get an 85 1.8. Any of those hold their value well so if you want new buy with confidence, or buy used and you may even make a buck in the long run.


Many of us don't have the budget to go for a full frame right away so we have a long term goal to go full frame ... the most obvious and logical option for such a goal is to build on full frame lenses. I decided to go for full frame in January 2010 and gradually started buying full frame lenses, while I was still using 60D & 7D ... by August 2012 I sold all my EF-S lenses and in September 2012 I bought my first FF DSLR, 5D MK III. I am not sure where you live but I've lived in the UK, Middle East & India ... in all those places, used EF-S lenses do not hold their resale value as well as EF L lenses. I bought my EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS for $1199 but had to sell for $720 in less than a year which was in mint condition with original box (I took 3 months to sell it, as my starting price was $1000 and kept dropping it till it was sold for $720 i.e. a 40% loss in the first year itself) ... whereas my 17-40 f/4 L (which bought for $799) was sold after 2 years of use for $680 (i.e. only 15% loss). I also sold the 100-400 L IS (bought for $1500) sold for $1500 after 18 months of use (i.e. no loss). From my limited experiance EF lens especailly the *L* lenses hold heir value much better than the EF-S lenses.


----------



## verysimplejason (Dec 13, 2012)

With that budget, you can go for a 16-35mm F2.8L II or a 17-40L. They're quite capable in a crop body as a walk-around lens and you can still use them later if you're going FF. At least when you go FF, you've already got a UWA and a normal lens. All's left is getting a 70-200 or 70-300 lens, a portrait lens (if you need one) and a macro lens(also if you need one).


----------



## koolman (Dec 13, 2012)

Consider Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC - much cheaper/lighter then the expensive/heavy canon 17-55.


----------



## Ido (Dec 14, 2012)

Thank you all for the tips and recommendations.
You gave me all a lot to think about, and maybe I should indeed change the way I think about purchasing EF-S lens.

I think I'll go with the 24-105L or 17-55 2.8.. or maybe the Tamaron 24-70....

Well, back to reading reviews and looking at photo samples 

Thanks again guys!


----------



## M.ST (Dec 14, 2012)

First choice is the EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS, but you ask for an EF lens.

A EF 17-40mm 4 L USM lens make sense on APS-C body and the price is very good. Hint: There is something new in the field for testing. If the new version of the lens (maybe with IS) hits the market you burn a lot of money. But until today there is no decision if one of the versions will be introduced.

My EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS is now a 24-55 mm lens (the part from 17 to 24 mm is dead). 24 mm focal lenght as the widest focal lenght on APS-C limits you too much and the 16-35 2.8 II is not the best choice for APS-C.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2012)

Rienzphotoz said:


> The 17-40 f/4 L is a great lens and well within your budget but very limited zoom range ... I take a lot of group photos and the 24 mm on 17-40 (even on 60D & 7D) had barrel distrotion which I did not like ...



Since the 17-40 isn't the sharpest lens on the block anyway, I don't think distortion correction in post will make that much of a difference?



Ido said:


> EF 17-40mm f/4L USM - Because I like the wide angle ( and I don't think the 17-35 justify the price tag)
> EF 24-105mm f/4L IS EF USM - Looks like a very good range coverage, but I lose some of the wide angle.
> EF 24-70mm f/4.0L - Looks good on the paper, but It's still not available, and I have an opportunity to purchase a lens now.



Concerning the lenses *you* asked about ... the new 24-70/4 is ridiculously overpriced, so as for 17-40 or 24-105 you simply need to determine if you need the wide focal length on crop (or ultra-wide on ff). For me, taking a step back has usually solved this problem outdoors and you can use panorama stitching to "get it all in". So do you shoot group portraits and/or indoors in tight spaces?

Concerning the lenses you didn't ask about: +1 for the Tamron 24-70 esp. on crop, after the price drop it's good value now and better build-quality than ef-s lenses. But of course esp. on crop f2.8 even with IS doesn't enable you to shoot in the dark and get good quality, so it's rather for thin depth of field if you want/like that.


----------



## grenadilla (Dec 15, 2012)

For several months I was debating whether or not to get the 24-105 to use on a 500d. I was worried 24 would not be wide enough. Eventually decided to go for the lens and sure glad I did. Absolutely love it, and the wide end of the lens isn't really that big an issue for my shooting. Eventually I'd like to get a UWA, but there are rarely times when I feel like switching out the 24-105 as it is so versatile.


----------



## SJTstudios (Dec 16, 2012)

Of your picks, I'd recommend the 17-40, it is equivalent to about a 24-70 on your crop body about.

Honestly there is not much else that could give you the range you want for a wide walk around lens.

I know it is important to think about what lenses will work for you in the future, but the thing is, that if you get a good ef-s lens that allows you to take better images, you won't be at a loss if you can't sell it for a good price.

Photography isn't about the lens or the camera, but the combo. Ef-s lenses are made to be better than ef lenses on crop bodies.

You should only upgrade to ff when you have the money to buy both the camera and the lens.

This is especially important for wide-mid zooms.

I strongly encourage you look at the canon ef-s lenses and some of the sigma's


----------



## Andy_Hodapp (Dec 16, 2012)

Go for the 17-40mm, I have a Canon T1i and every time I'm out in Montana, when I'm not taking photos of wildlife, I have the 17-40mm on. It is a great lens and very sharp at F/8-11, many of my most famous works have been with it and it can transfer over to full frame, I just got a 5D MkII two days ago and haven't gotten around to shooting with the 17-40mm on it but I am sure it will be great. Here are some photos I've taken with my 17-40mm.


----------



## Policar (Dec 16, 2012)

The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is amazing in that way something that underwhelms you by virtue of having no weaknesses is. Resale is good, too. And it's sharp and the right set of focal lengths for portraiture and landscape (could be a little longer for portraiture, I like 85mm on crop). Some weird, gnarly CA but whatever... No distortion. Punchy, nice micro-contrast. I liked it for stills and for video. It's the lens I miss most now that I've gone to FF. Build quality was as good as my L lenses.

And to be perfectly honest, I preferred the 18-55mm kit lens to the 17-40mm L on crop. I like the 17-40mm L much more on FF, even though the corners are bad. It is a fine lens by f8 and it's contrasty, but so is most everything else.


----------

