# Best general purpose lens?



## houston1852 (Jun 2, 2012)

I've been back and forth for months now on which my best choice for a good all purpose walk around lens would be. I take mostly wildlife, old buildings, old gravestones, some sunrise/sunsets....basically everything. I do like some zoom on it, but already have a 70-300, so don't need too much. I'm using a T2i with the 18-55 kit and ready to upgrade. I'd appreciate any help on this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2012)

17-55mm assuming you mean for an APS-C body. A general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele, and 24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 17-55mm assuming you mean for an APS-C body. A general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele, and 24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide.



+1. It was my most used lens on a crop body.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jun 2, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> 17-55mm assuming you mean for an APS-C body. A general purpose zoom should cover wide to short tele, and 24mm on APS-C is normal, not wide.



Probably this for a crop, or the 17-85. Dunno about quality on either one, but for FF I'd go 24-105L, I found it a better all around lens personally than the 24-70 due to the bit of extra reach and IS for most situations.


----------



## swampler (Jun 2, 2012)

24 - 105 f/4L for full frame, 15 - 85 for crop. Both cover wide angle to telephoto with excellent image quality.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 3, 2012)

swampler said:


> 24 - 105 f/4L for full frame, 15 - 85 for crop. Both cover wide angle to telephoto with excellent image quality.



For me, on FF, 24-105 f/4L IS hands down. On a 7D, for example, 15-85mm as well. Both are good enough at IQ if you do your part correctly.


----------



## katwil (Jun 4, 2012)

If you plan to shoot in lower light situations the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 would be a good choice, but with your current lens you’ll have a 15mm gap between 55 and 70. The EF-S 15-85 would be my choice for daytime shots. If you plan to move to FF soon, the 24-105 L is a good choice, but it left me dissatisfied with my T3i and 40D as it wasn’t wide enough.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2012)

For your T2i, out of those you mentioned, only the 17-55mm ef-s is really suitable. It will cost less and be better.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2012)

17-55 f2.8 IS...a MUST have lens for crop


----------



## pwp (Jun 4, 2012)

Everyone is pointing at the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Follow my finger...it's pointing at the _17-55 f2.8 IS_ too!
For a general purpose lens for APS-C it just can't be beat.

PW


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 4, 2012)

I agree the 17-55 makes great images, but its a dust collector! If you dont mind your 1000$ plus lens filled with dust then go ahead. But for that price id go 24-105L. i use it on my 7D and love it. 17 mm is not wide enough for me anyways and like the extra reach more. If i want wide ill go 10-22. Now on my 5D3 the 24-105 is perfect. But still carry the 16-35 for when i want to go wide. Like with any lens you just adapt. But i wasnt comfortable using a lens that expensive that filled with dust after a couple weeks use. Go with L's and you will surely be pleased. I certainly am!


----------



## Jim K (Jun 4, 2012)

From your list the 17-55 f/2.8. But if you are shooting outdoors and need more W/A than your 18-55 kit lens gives you for those "old buildings" the 15-85 would probably be a better choice. 

The 17-55 f/2.8 will give you almost the same view as your 18-55 kits lens. If you are happy with the kit lens and the 55-70 gap does not bother you the 2.8 would work for you with better IQ than the kit lens. If you could use something wider and longer that overlaps the 70-300 the 15-85 is a great lens. There is not very much "wide" in any of the 24-70 lenses.

A lot of folks like the 24-105 on their Full Frame bodies and the 15-85 on a crop body has the same field of view as a 24-135 would have on a FF.


----------



## RC (Jun 4, 2012)

Jim K said:


> ...for those "old buildings" the 15-85 would probably be a better choice.


Not to throw in another variable but keep in mind the 15-85 has extreme distortion at 15mm and may not be suitable for those buildings, that was one of the reasons I sold mine. Otherwise I think this is an excellent EF-S lens--IQ, build, focal length.



SteenerMe said:


> I agree the 17-55 makes great images, but its a dust collector! ...


I do think this is a valid concern especially if you live in a high particulate area like I do in the southwest USA. Most state the dust does not impact IQ, some claim they have no dust while others claim their lens is full of dust. Haven't owned the lens but I'm guessing environment and amount of zooming are the contributing factors.

Options to consider:

- 17-55
- 15-85
- 10-22 plus 24-105 (not a single lens walk-around like you are seeking)


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> I agree the 17-55 makes great images, but its a dust collector! If you dont mind your 1000$ plus lens filled with dust then go ahead. But for that price id go 24-105L. i use it on my 7D and love it. 17 mm is not wide enough for me anyways and like the extra reach more. If i want wide ill go 10-22. Now on my 5D3 the 24-105 is perfect. But still carry the 16-35 for when i want to go wide. Like with any lens you just adapt. But i wasnt comfortable using a lens that expensive that filled with dust after a couple weeks use. Go with L's and you will surely be pleased. I certainly am!



*IF* it does...it will *NOT* affect IQ. For crop body, I take this lens over 24-105 L anytime.

If I ever go back to crop, the 1st lens I will buy is *17-55 f2.8 IS.*


----------



## SteenerMe (Jun 4, 2012)

Well it may or may not effect the IQ. But would you really buy a 1000$ lens that the front glass was covered in dust, that you cannot clean off? If so have fun with that. Mine only took a couple weeks before it was filled with junk. On the bright side you wont have to bother with the lens cap! Yeah....


----------



## cliffwang (Jun 4, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> SteenerMe said:
> 
> 
> > I agree the 17-55 makes great images, but its a dust collector! If you dont mind your 1000$ plus lens filled with dust then go ahead. But for that price id go 24-105L. i use it on my 7D and love it. 17 mm is not wide enough for me anyways and like the extra reach more. If i want wide ill go 10-22. Now on my 5D3 the 24-105 is perfect. But still carry the 16-35 for when i want to go wide. Like with any lens you just adapt. But i wasnt comfortable using a lens that expensive that filled with dust after a couple weeks use. Go with L's and you will surely be pleased. I certainly am!
> ...


+1
I just cannot tell how much I love my 17-55mm on 7D. I love my 17-55mm much more than my 24-70mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 4, 2012)

SteenerMe said:


> Well it may or may not effect the IQ. But would you really buy a 1000$ lens that the front glass was covered in dust, that you cannot clean off? If so have fun with that. Mine only took a couple weeks before it was filled with junk. On the bright side you wont have to bother with the lens cap! Yeah....



Had mine over 2 years, not a speck of dust in it, despite lots of use in dusty and pollen-filled environments (like now, where the pollen on my car is so thick the car now looks yellow instead of the green its painted).


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jun 4, 2012)

17-55 is a must. You've got to have the wide end, especially for the subject matter you stated. I've had mine for over a year and dust is not a problem. It's an awesome lens.


----------



## JEAraman (Jun 4, 2012)

I had one that I used for over a year and half on my 7d.. Never had any problems with it. Sold it at the price I bought it...

17-55... GO for it!


----------



## Strobe the globe (Jun 6, 2012)

I like the EF-S 18-200mm IS lens. Pity I don't think they make a USM equivalent. It's a bit slow focussing. Great general purpose lens though.


----------



## aznable (Jun 6, 2012)

a sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM OS...24-70 it's too wide, and the canon 17-55 it's too expensive


----------



## boateggs (Jun 8, 2012)

I went with the 15-85mm: less money than the 17-55 and I already had a fast normal prime for low light. I also plan ahead and take my fast primes when it is night or the zoom durring the day.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 8, 2012)

aznable said:


> a sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM OS...



+1
I find it even a tad better than Canon's counterpart, except for the lack of FTM focusing and -5mm on the tele end. Couple it with a 24-105 and you're done.

The 15-85 is also very good, but IMHO it's quite expensive for a lens of such slow aperture. If you want just one lens for a crop body, I'd go Sigma 17-70 OS HSM. Loses some range to the 15-85, but it's a whole stop faster and this comes in handy for portraits and lower-light situations. Has even a decent macro capability with 1:2.7. More versatile overall. And it costs a half, which is not a bad thing, and you get the hood for free. The first version (that I'm using) has no OS or HSM but it's slightly sharper and has better macro at 1:2.3.

BTW, I'm reading nice things about the new Sigma 18-200 OS HSM MK2 as well.


----------



## charleswagoner (Jun 9, 2012)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 17-40 f/4 L. Yeah it's a stop slower than the other mentioned, but that's fine as a walk around lens. Add to that a fast 50 when you need low light capability and you'll have a great kit.


----------



## Albi86 (Jun 9, 2012)

charleswagoner said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 17-40 f/4 L. Yeah it's a stop slower than the other mentioned, but that's fine as a walk around lens. Add to that a fast 50 when you need low light capability and you'll have a great kit.



I'm not surprised. What's the smartness in putting a 17-40 f/4 L on a T2i? You can have more for less.


----------



## swampler (Jun 9, 2012)

charleswagoner said:


> I'm surprised no one has mentioned the 17-40 f/4 L. Yeah it's a stop slower than the other mentioned, but that's fine as a walk around lens. Add to that a fast 50 when you need low light capability and you'll have a great kit.


Sorry, I just don't see how 50, much less 40mm on the long end could be remotely useful as a general purpose lens? Seems more specialized to me.


----------



## Axilrod (Jun 13, 2012)

No one really knows what the 24-70 II is like, but based on the MTF charts and the few bits I've heard from people that played with it (most of them just briefly) it's an amazing lens. The 24-70mm 1 is a great lens as well but I've seen quite a bit of variation from copy to copy, some are much sharper than others.

But I agree with most on here, 17-55 for APS-C and 24-70 or 24-105 for FF (depends on your needs and available lenses really).


----------

