Best Everyday Lens to Buy

[andreboy]

I've managed to save enough money to purchase a quality, worthwhile, EVERYDAY/WALK-AROUND lens. Problem is I can't seem to choose which one to buy. I've read reviews about the lenses below and most, if not all the reviews, say they're all great lenses to have. If I had the money to buy them all I would. But unfortunately, I only have the budget to buy one.

So your help and advise will be greatly appreciated.

Which one do I buy?
- Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM (not much range)
- Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM (f/4, no IS)
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM (love the f2.8, but no IS)
- Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (f/4, but the range is really appealing)
- Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (not an L lens but the rave reviews are hard to ignore)

I'm leaning more towards the 24-105mm and the 16-35mm. But hey, if you guys think otherwise then your thoughts will be greatly valued.

Many thanks in advance!!!!

[inkista]

What are your photographic interests? What are you planning on shooting with this walkaround? And are you going to use this on a full-frame or a crop body camera?

[FrankLamont]

Solely for this purpose...

A walkaround lens is most likely (for)

a) during the day
b) walking
c) outside

...meaning, of course, that you'd want to have lightness and size taken down. Aperture is not so much of a big deal (hence mention of 'outside' and 'during the day').

The 24-105mm is reasonably light, small and the aperture isn't outrageous. And heck, if it rains and you have a sealed body... there you go, an added bonus.

But for other stuff as well? Hmm, reconsider some elements of what you need.

[Quo Fan]

I have the Canon 17-40 f/4L and it resides on my camera most of the time. I fell in love with the lens during my trip to California when I rented the lens for 2 weeks.

[TheKingInYellow]

I asked this very same question a little while ago, looking at the very same lenses.

The 24-105 won

[andreboy]

Originally Posted by inkista

What are your photographic interests? What are you planning on shooting with this walkaround? And are you going to use this on a full-frame or a crop body camera?

Inkista,

I use a crop body camera. In terms of interest, I shoot mainly portraits, landscapes and still-life. I'm looking for a lens that can work around my interests.

[andreboy]

Originally Posted by TheKingInYellow

I asked this very same question a little while ago, looking at the very same lenses.

The 24-105 won

TheKingInYellow,

Interesting, especially since we have pretty much the same gear. Thanks!

[bearly]

i've heard nothing but rave reviews of the 24-70L... i haven't used it personally but i've heard and read that it is better overall than the 24-105L and that its arguably the best mid range zoom lens canon makes. the 16-35L is also amazing, but doesn't have nearly the same range of focal lengths as the 24-70L

[inkista]

Originally Posted by andreboy

I use a crop body camera. In terms of interest, I shoot mainly portraits, landscapes and still-life. I'm looking for a lens that can work around my interests.

My personal druthers would be to give the portrait/available light work to a fast prime, and look for an f/4 walkaround that can do the other jobs, but I'm kind of a lens junkie and a gearhead. I think the 17-55 f/2.8 might be the best fit for for accomplishing everything you want to do with it.

The 16-35 makes more sense on full-frame than on a crop (since it's essentially designed to be the FF equivalent of the EF-S 10-22). The zoom range is smallish, and it's not an ultrawide on a crop,and the optical performance isn't as high as the others, because it's trying to go so wide and fast for a full frame.

The 17-40 is too slow for available light work and is unstabilized, but it's the least expensive of all those lenses and goes wide on a crop. Great landscape lens.

The 24-105 is too long to be wide on a crop but works well if you tend to shoot long (I use mine at 105mm about 85% of the time). The f/4, however, is going to be too slow for a lot of available light work of moving subject matter. IS only helps if your subject isn't moving, so it's less versatile as a portrait lens. Great for the still life shooting, though. Some full-frame shooters, though, find the performance of the 24-105 to be sub-par for the price because of the 4x+ zoom range compromises. Given that most of the weaknesses of the 24-105 are in the corners, it looks better on a crop.

The 24-70L is f/2.8 so great for portraits, but it's unstabilized so less use in low light for still subject matter. And not particularly wide on a crop. Great wedding/event lens, though, and optically better than the 24-105.

The 17-55 is f/2.8 and stabilized and is probably the most capable of all the lenses for a crop body for doing everything you list, but it won't work on a full-frame if you decide to upgrade to one, and doesn't go particularly long.

[cphoniball]

I'll second Inkista on the prime for portrait work. An 85 1.8 is an excellent lens for portraits, and can double for still-life work as well. With your budget you'll still be able to afford the 17-40 f4 for a walk around/landscape lens.

If you want one lens, the 17-55 is probably the best, followed by the 24-70.