Good universal lens?

[brad arnold]

I am looking for a good quality but mid price universal lens for my canon eos 50d. I see I have several choices but hope someone in the crowd actually owns one and likes it. Mid price would be nice, $600.00 American. I have several lenses but on certain trips would like one lens that covers portraits to sports shots and is fairly fast for night shots.

[OldBoy]

Your choice is limited to a 70-200mm F2.8 so suggest looking at The Sigma or Tamron versions. For low light you need the fastest glass possible, so anything over F4 wouldn't be good enough. Have a look at the second-hand market to keep with-in your budget. I use a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 VR and it's very useful in these situations.

[flake]

I dissagree with Oldboy's choice here, a 70 - 200mm is not a universal lens, although it would cover portrait & some sports. What is it you want a universal lens or a portrait and sports as the two are completely different lenses!

Canon make a very good 'universal' lens the 24 - 105mm f/4 L IS which would be good for portrait and some sports - not as long as the 70 - 200mm but more of a universal one. Not sure if you'd describe this as a mid price lens, compared to the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L it's definitely mid priced, but only you can decide if it's right for you.

[OldBoy]

Originally Posted by flake

I dissagree with Oldboy's choice here, a 70 - 200mm is not a universal lens, although it would cover portrait & some sports. What is it you want a universal lens or a portrait and sports as the two are completely different lenses!

Canon make a very good 'universal' lens the 24 - 105mm f/4 L IS which would be good for portrait and some sports - not as long as the 70 - 200mm but more of a universal one. Not sure if you'd describe this as a mid price lens, compared to the 70 - 200mm f/2.8 IS L it's definitely mid priced, but only you can decide if it's right for you.

Two of the reasons the OP stated was sports and night. F2.8 lens is better for low-light shots than F4, and the reach at 200mm is ideal for sports. Also, can be used with extenders to increase that range. It's therefore more universal than a 24-105mm F4.

[hssutton]

A little long on the short end, but have a look at the new Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG OS. £400 Approx $650

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09...0mm300mmis.asp

[chris-p]

Lets hope that Sigma is better than the non-OS one.

It was tested in AP a few months ago (the older non-OS lens) and was frankly appalling. Their verdict was "don't buy one"

[BenBirchall]

Once you get a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens you will wonder how you ever got by without one. It will become your workhorse for people and sport, trust me.

Ben

[hssutton]

Originally Posted by BenBirchall

Once you get a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens you will wonder how you ever got by without one. It will become your workhorse for people and sport, trust me.

Ben

Strange you should say that Ben, I've been wanting to sell my as new 70-200L lens and 2 x extender (not on here) but all I hear is they are to heavy to carry around. Guess it will have to go on Ebay.

Harry

[BenBirchall]

Originally Posted by hssutton

Strange you should say that Ben, I've been wanting to sell my as new 70-200L lens and 2 x extender (not on here) but all I hear is they are to heavy to carry around. Guess it will have to go on Ebay.

Harry

I assume you don't do much people & sport?

[hssutton]

Originally Posted by BenBirchall

I assume you don't do much people & sport?

Not any more Ben.

I found it great for what I bought it for, that being the Masai Mara, as often such as the 100-400 is a little too long when the lions come right up to the land rover, also fabulous for weddings along with my 24-70 2.8, but all I do now is birds, planes and macro.

Harry