Hey Guys,

I'm planning on getting a Canon 60D, however I'm So confused about which us the best overall lens to get with the body, I understand each lens is different and it very much depends on what you want to achieve, but any advise on a good overall zoom lens would be great. Somthing for everyday walk about use.

Thanks Guys

Arguably, the best standard zoom lens for the Canon crop 1.6x bodies is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. It covers many typical focal lengths, from around twice normal FOV through a moderate telephoto, the AF is very fast and accurate, the aperture is large enough for some low light work, and the IS is the real deal, allowing hand-held to around 1/15th shutter speeds (subject allowing).

It's also very expensive and that may turn off some prospects.

A great value standard zoom is the Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF. It covers basically the same range as the above lens, at a fraction of the cost. The AF is not quite as fast and there is no stabilization, but it's still a very competent lens at a very reasonable price.

Many Thanks Ziggy53, I will look into it. How much is it and will it cover landscape, portraits, nature, close ups etc etc? I've read alit about the Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Canon AF). Is this worth getting?

Originally Posted by Snapshot121 ... I will look into it. How much is it ...

When you "look into it", you will probably discover the cost. I already said it was expensive for the Canon 17-55mm IS USM and much less so for the Tamron. If you get much less than the Tamron, it will probably be much less of a lens. The Tamron 17-50mm I mentioned is about as cheap as I can recommend for a camera like the Canon 60D, which deserves a good lens.

Originally Posted by Snapshot121 ... will it cover landscape, portraits, nature, close ups etc etc? ...

You original query was for a "walk-a-round" lens. Now you're inquiring about "landscape, portraits, nature, close ups etc etc". The only answer I can give to that is "yes and no"; yes, it will work for some of those scenarios and situations and no, it will not work for all situations. When you buy a dSLR partly you buy it for its flexibility, and part of the flexibility comes from interchanging the lenses. If you don't ever plan to change lenses, my recommendation is to buy something other than a dSLR.

To do a first rate job at anything requires using the proper tools. To do all of the things well that you have now suggested will require multiple lenses and some flashes, flash modifiers, reflectors, a tripod or 2, tripod heads, some light stands, etc.

Originally Posted by Snapshot121 ... I've read alit about the Tamron 70-300mm f4/5.6 DI LD Macro (Canon AF). Is this worth getting?

The Tamron 70-300mm, f4-f5.6 zoom telephoto lenses are entry level but do a decent job from 70-200mm in good light and if you stop them down a bit. Specifically they are not too good at 300mm (at any f-stop) and they are not too good when the aperture is wide open. They are also a bit slow to focus. This rather limits their utility. (Yes, I have a copy of the Tamron 70-300mm, f4-f5.6 zoom telephoto.)

The least expensive, but really high image quality, zoom telephoto, is the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L USM (without IS.) This lens is a great value for its level of image quality. I can highly recommend it.

Generally speaking, lenses of constant aperture have better image quality than lenses of variable aperture. Also, generally speaking, lenses with a zoom factor of around 3x "and" constant aperture are "very" high image quality (from Canon anyway).

Lenses should account for a significant portion of your photography budget, and lighting (for most social/people scenarios) should account for far more than most folks allow.

I definitely second the Canon 17-55. It's on my 50D about 80% of the time...parties, events, travel (architecture, landscapes, etc), low light scenarios, etc. It's considered to be "L" quality in terms of optics, just not "L" quality in terms of build (it's not weather sealed, for example). This optical quality is what drives the price to approx US$1100 - you'll get better light collecting ability, better colors, contrast, clarity, etc than a cheaper lens. You need good glass to do justice to your 60D.

a 70-200 (or 70-300) is definitely NOT wide enough on a crop-sensor camera to be a general purpose walkabout lens. However, you'll want one eventually to compliment the 17-55....then after that you might want to add an ultra-wide into the mix (10-22 for example) to expand your range even further.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 When you "look into it", you will probably discover the cost. I already said it was expensive for the Canon 17-55mm IS USM and much less so for the Tamron. If you get much less than the Tamron, it will probably be much less of a lens. The Tamron 17-50mm I mentioned is about as cheap as I can recommend for a camera like the Canon 60D, which deserves a good lens. You original query was for a "walk-a-round" lens. Now you're inquiring about "landscape, portraits, nature, close ups etc etc". The only answer I can give to that is "yes and no"; yes, it will work for some of those scenarios and situations and no, it will not work for all situations. When you buy a dSLR partly you buy it for its flexibility, and Bpart of the flexibility comes from interchanging the lenses. If you don't ever plan to change lenses, my recommendation is to buy something other than a dSLR. To do a first rate job at anything requires using the proper tools. To do all of the things well that you have now suggested will require multiple lenses and some flashes, flash modifiers, reflectors, a tripod or 2, tripod heads, some light stands, etc. The Tamron 70-300mm, f4-f5.6 zoom telephoto lenses are entry level but do a decent job from 70-200mm in good light and if you stop them down a bit. Specifically they are not too good at 300mm (at any f-stop) and they are not too good when the aperture is wide open. They are also a bit slow to focus. This rather limits their utility. (Yes, I have a copy of the Tamron 70-300mm, f4-f5.6 zoom telephoto.) The least expensive, but really high image quality, zoom telephoto, is the Canon EF 70-200mm, f4L USM (without IS.) This lens is a great value for its level of image quality. I can highly recommend it. Generally speaking, lenses of constant aperture have better image quality than lenses of variable aperture. Also, generally speaking, lenses with a zoom factor of around 3x "and" constant aperture are "very" high image quality (from Canon anyway). Lenses should account for a significant portion of your photography budget, and lighting (for most social/people scenarios) should account for far more than most folks allow.

Thank you ziggy53

All your advise is very useful and I'll be sure to invest in a good lens (s) which you have suggested.

Originally Posted by chrisdg I definitely second the Canon 17-55. It's on my 50D about 80% of the time...parties, events, travel (architecture, landscapes, etc), low light scenarios, etc. It's considered to be "L" quality in terms of optics, just not "L" quality in terms of build (it's not weather sealed, for example). This optical quality is what drives the price to approx US$1100 - you'll get better light collecting ability, better colors, contrast, clarity, etc than a cheaper lens. You need good glass to do justice to your 60D. a 70-200 (or 70-300) is definitely NOT wide enough on a crop-sensor camera to be a general purpose walkabout lens. However, you'll want one eventually to compliment the 17-55....then after that you might want to add an ultra-wide into the mix (10-22 for example) to expand your range even further.

Thanks Chris

Very useful too know