-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Recommendation please. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Freako
- Start date
Gronk08
Well-known member
Hi
Depends on your budget and really what you want to use the lens for.
If you have a full frame body and prepared to pay the money the 24-70 f2.8 lens is great and even the non Canon versions can be good such as the Tamron version would be a good portrait lens while still being useful for landscape work.
The 24-105 is a great all-round lens and allows for most situations.
For landscape the 16-35 lens is a great lens.
Tim.
Depends on your budget and really what you want to use the lens for.
If you have a full frame body and prepared to pay the money the 24-70 f2.8 lens is great and even the non Canon versions can be good such as the Tamron version would be a good portrait lens while still being useful for landscape work.
The 24-105 is a great all-round lens and allows for most situations.
For landscape the 16-35 lens is a great lens.
Tim.
Gronk08
Well-known member
I have only ever had crop bodies 40D and now a 750D I have a 10-24mm Sigma lens that I find great for landscape work and the good old nifty 50 for portraits plus the 70-200 f4 (if I was doing more portrait work I would maybe go for the f2.8, the Sigma/Tamron versions can be just as good in respect to image quality but the focusing speed is not as quick as Canon glass)
Tim.
Tim.
marcsantacurz
Well-known member
The Canon 18-135 USM for crop cameras is supposed to be a great do-everything lens. Be sure it is the USM version (there are 3 of the 18-135s). That's equivalent to a 28-200mm, which is really all you need except for birds, wildlife, or high 3d perspective wide angle.
Not to be flippant, but you could also switch to the Sony RX100VII (24-200mm equivalent) in a small point-and-shoot format. The Canon lens is $600 new. If you sell your Canon gear, you could afford the Sony at $1200. Something to think about! Or, you could get that Canon lens used for $400.
Personally, I'd rather carry something like the Sony for walk-around and the DSLR for action with a long lens like a 150-600 or 400. The 18-135 is 515g, whereas the RX100VI is only 302g w/ battery & sd card. So, it weighs less to carry the Sony than to carry a second lens (at least the 18-135 USM), and there's no lens switching. And the RX100VII is probably better for action at closer range than the 7d2 (20fps, amazing AF).
Marc
Not to be flippant, but you could also switch to the Sony RX100VII (24-200mm equivalent) in a small point-and-shoot format. The Canon lens is $600 new. If you sell your Canon gear, you could afford the Sony at $1200. Something to think about! Or, you could get that Canon lens used for $400.
Personally, I'd rather carry something like the Sony for walk-around and the DSLR for action with a long lens like a 150-600 or 400. The 18-135 is 515g, whereas the RX100VI is only 302g w/ battery & sd card. So, it weighs less to carry the Sony than to carry a second lens (at least the 18-135 USM), and there's no lens switching. And the RX100VII is probably better for action at closer range than the 7d2 (20fps, amazing AF).
Marc
