Walkaround zoom for everyday photography: advice needed!

[gmax]

Hello everybody,

I'm looking for some advice on choosing a small, walkaround zoom.

I already have a Canon zoom, the EF 28-105 f /3.5-4.5 II USM, it's a decent lens in itself whose range is quite fit for my needs, but recently I've been asked to shoot indoor during a couple of events (a friend's wedding, my little nephew's school recital etc) and the results were not so convincing.

It's undoubtedly due to my poor skills in this field, I'm wondering though if a different lens would help in getting some finer and more consistent results.
I'm not going to widen my short lenses collection :-O - just need one, but, given the fact that I would use it quite seldom, I'm not going to spend a fortune on it (saving for the long, horrendous beasts ;)).

Any advice on range, brand, aperture, stabilization, PRICE etc?

Thank you very much,

Max

EDIT: I'm also open to different brands, so perhaps this thread might fit other sections as well ...

[CANONROB]

Hi Max

I use as a walk about lens a 24 105 L IS f4 and find it is a fantastic lens, when my 100 400L IS is not on the 40D, 24 105 is, it is worth spending the extra money on the L series and the image Stab. its fantastic. I have used it for weddings with great results, and I use it for most shots, I would give it 10/10. I picked this over the 24 70 L 2.8 for the extra reach and IS.

I hope this helps Rob

[postcardcv]

I have two walk about zooms for different situations, a 28-70 f2.8 for indoor and portrait work and a 70-200 f4 for outside, action stuff. The problem with both is that they don't come cheap, but as you're used to the quality that the 456 gives I doubt you'll be happy with a cheaper lens.

Personally I'd go for the shorter option for indoor work, I choose the 28-70 f2.8 over the 24-105 f4 as I felt the wider aperture was more important that IS. I've never found it to be lacking in reach (though I sometimes wish it would go wider) and the IQ is stunning. Over 90% of my wedding shots are taken with this lens, the only negative this is the weight.

[tdodd]

I imagine your problem is that the lens is simply not fast enough. To photograph well under the conditions you describe you will need a lens that is a constant f/2.8 or faster. You won't get one zoom lens to cover the range of your 28-105 at f/2.8, so it's going to be something like a 24-70 f/2.8 and a 70-200 f/2.8. I'm not sure there are any zooms faster than f/2.8 so that's pretty much pinned down your options. The 24-105 f/4 might be a step up the ladder in IQ, and f/4 is surely better than f/4.5, but worse than f/3.5 so I don't see that solution offering massive gains. However you cut it, the solution is not going to be cheap.

Another option might be to simply add an 85mm f/1.8 prime to your collection and hope that you can do enough with a fixed focal length.

The only other alternative I can think of is to whack up your ISO to get decent shutter speeds, but even then there may simply be insufficient light to get what you need, and of course IQ will take a dive. Even so, noisey images are surely better than blurry ones.

[postcardcv]

Another option might be to simply add an 85mm f/1.8 prime to your collection and hope that you can do enough with a fixed focal length.

That's a good idea... you coudl go even cheaper and add a 50 f1.8, it must be the best value lens out there.

[tdodd]

I did think about the nifty but figured it would be pretty useless at a recital, unless you were in the front row, and even then....

A nifty could be more useful at a wedding, but really it depends on where you are in relation to your subject, and what your subject is. Sometimes even 50mm will be too long, especially on a crop body.

My ideal solution would be 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which I just happen to have :D But then we're talking a lot of bucks for that combo.

By the way, I do have a nifty as well, and it never ever gets used. The AF is slow, noisey and not that precise, and with my 17-55 in hand the nifty is consigned to the bottom of the bag, as an emergency backup, or to go on the end of some macro tubes.

[postcardcv]

My ideal solution would be 17-55 f/2.8 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS, which I just happen to have :D But then we're talking a lot of bucks for that combo.

I've not tried a 17-55 f2.8, what is the image quality like, does it compare well to L series lenses? Given the size, weight and price I would think the 24-105 f4 would be a more flexible lens even though you lose a stop.

I agree that the 50 f1.8 has it's limitations, but it is a good quality, cheap lowlight option. The 85 f1.8 would be better for some applications but I can't imagine using one for weddings.

[tdodd]

17-55 review - http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/178-canon-ef-s-17-55mm-f28-usm-is-test-report--review

On a crop body, 24mm at the wide end is equivalent to 38mm on a 35mm full frame body. That is not especially wide at all, and could be very restrictive for indoor shoots at home, or in the pub etc.. 17mm on a crop body is equivalent to 27.2mm, which is reasonably wide.

It's very much horses for courses, of course. If your lens isn't quite long enough you can always crop a bit, but if it isn't wide enough, and there is a wall preventing you moving back, then you're stuffed. I think there is a reason the 24-105 is an EF lens, whereas many EF-S lenses are around the 17/18-XXX mark. Of course, if you have a 10-22 then the 24-105 dovetails quite nicely with that, but it's still only f/4 and that is not so good for indoor natural/available light photography. Remember, as well, that lenses at f/2.8 and faster can use the higher precision focusing features of the Canon bodies. They'll focus better in poor light and give a brighter viewfinder image too.

My full lens lineup is 10-22, 17-55, 17-85, 70-200, 100-400, 50, plus a 1.4X converter, so I have every possible focal length covered from 10mm through to 560mm, equivalent to 16mm to 896mm on a full frame body. I'd far rather have my 17-55 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 than a 24-105 f/4. If you want to shoot weddings, for example, f/4 really won't cut it.

[gmax]

Many interesting combinations here ... I'll check!
One detail: I see the 28-70 is a discontinued lens, which sounds good to me, price-wise ;) ... is it easily available on the used market or not?

[JohnZ]

I have often thought of the 28-70 for myself. They are most certainly not cheap ! I have even looked to getting one from the States but even there they still fetch a good price.

[Jaff]

This might be of some help Max. http://www.ephotozine.com/topic/t-60378

Also there might be similar topics covered on the sister site to this one, www.worldphotographyforum.com I think.

A lot of what's said should apply to you and I I'd just like to add the 50mm f1.8 worked well for me and I was certainly glad of the 1.8 vs a 2.8 but if your indoors with poor lighting then a fixed 2.8 or larger should be a must.

Best of luck.

EDIT The link doesn't work but someone will know what it is. Second EDIT ;) Seems Pete's corrected the link so it's right.

[postcardcv]

Many interesting combinations here ... I'll check!
One detail: I see the 28-70 is a discontinued lens, which sounds good to me, price-wise ;) ... is it easily available on the used market or not?

yeah the 28-70 f2.8 has been discontinued (replaced with the 24-70 f2.8) but still turns op secondhand quite a lot. Used they tend to go for £400-550 depending on condition. If you read the reviews on fredmiranda you'll see how popular this lens is.

Having read some reviews of the 17-55 f2.8 it certainly sounds like a decent lens, though it sounds like the IQ is not up to L lens standard. Personally I'd be put off it because it's an EF-S lens, so if in the future you buy a full frame (or 1.3x crop 1D) camera then the lens wouldn't work.

[tdodd]

I've not tried a 17-55 f2.8, what is the image quality like, does it compare well to L series lenses? Given the size, weight and price I would think the 24-105 f4 would be a more flexible lens even though you lose a stop.
I didn't want to bump the thread, but as I can no longer edit my post about the 17-55, here's a recent discussion thread about it....

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=525553

There's also a collection of links to lens image archive threads here - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406. Unfortunately, there is no accounting for the skills of the individual photographers, so some images may make you think "WTF?" but if you assume the good images are indicative of what the lens can do, in the right hands, then I guess you wouldn't be far wrong.

[tdodd]

I happened upon this thread tonight - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061. I've only read the first post so far but it is an interesting comparison between Canon's 17-55, 24-70 and 24-105 lenses. I'm now off to see how the thread pans out.

[gmax]

I happened upon this thread tonight - http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=484061. I've only read the first post so far but it is an interesting comparison between Canon's 17-55, 24-70 and 24-105 lenses. I'm now off to see how the thread pans out.

Thanks Tim, I'll have a look ...