CrunchGear

Generally speaking, prime lenses (non-zoom) have always had the reputation of being able to provide sharper images. However, the trade-off is in the lack of versatility and the constant need to switch between lenses.

I prefer the versatility and ease of use that is found with the zoom lenses and I believe that with three particular lenses you can cover the greatest focal range with great quality. The three lenses I suggest are as follows:

1. 16-35mm f2.8L
2. 24-70mm f2.8L
3. 70-200mm f2.8L IS (IS Optional)

All these lenses provide excellent low-light performance and cover a very wide range of focal lengths. Most people consider the 24-70 to be a great “walk-around” lens.

If you’re looking for a lens that you will rarely have to switch out, I’d consider the EF 24-105mm f4L IS lens. Since this lens does not open up to 2.8 it can be argued that it is not as suited for low-light situations as the 2.8 lenses are. However, don’t forget that this lens is an “IS” lens and that can make up for about three stops!

Although the 24-105mm lens would be great, keep in mind that the 30D suffers from a 1.3x Crop factor. That means you wouldn’t really be getting the view of a 24-105, it would be more of a 31-136. You’d really be missing out on the wide-angle possibilities. Hell, even with the 16-35mm you’re missing out, but not nearly as bad (imo).

Well, you can’t go wrong either way. Best of luck!

I had 24-70 L with a 20D and the combo is efficient but unbalanced : the lense is way too big compared to the camera. Works much better with a 1D series

I’d go for a 24-105 f4 L IS (smaller, lighter, bigger range, vignetting problem killed by the 1.6 crop effect) or a 17-40 f4 L if you need the wide angle (you get a 28mm equivalent)

I had assumed that Blake had or would have purchased the appropriate battery grip for the 30D. (oops!) With the battery grip, the 24-70 although still relatively heavy, is not “unbalanced” in my opinion.

The 17-40 f4 that was suggested is a great buy in terms of quality for $, but I don’t think this lens would be ideal for low light shooting, at least not in comparison to the 16-35.

Oh, and although you’re probably still right about the crop factor eliminating the vignetting issues associated with the 24-105, it’s only a 1.3 crop factor on the 30D (i think). So for the 17-40 it would actually be more like a 22mm equivalent.

I actually bought a 30D back in May and did a lot of research for my general purpose lens. I settled on the 24-70 f2.8, and I have found it to be an excellent lens with great range, very sharp images, and no chromatic abberation or vignetting visible. It can do landscapes all the way up to portraits on a 30D (which has a 1.6x crop factor, not 1.3x as is mentioned above).

I am looking to buy the 70-200 f/2.8 IS next, combined with a 1.4x multiplier. This will be my zoom lens for most zoom scenarios short of wildlife. On the wider side, this works well as a portrait lens.

I am also looking to grab the 16-35 f/2.8 for landscape work, and later on maybe a fixed 35 or 50 mm f/1.4 for candids as my photography progresses.

The crop factor on the Canon EOS 30D is 1.6 (see, for example, here.

For low light condititions, and due to the 1,6 crop factor (like my 350d) I can only suggest the Sigma 30mm 1.4 (http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3300&navigator=6)

Then check out FredMiranda (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/) keeping in mind that many people on there tend to go overboard in their reviews. (If I hold it slightly left angled toward the sun at 95.3% and open the lense wide, trembling a little bit then there is a vignetting on the lower left side that is visible when scaling the photo to 9 Apple 30″ Displays ;))

If you ever think about going for a full frame model like the 5d, then taking the L lenses is a good idea because they work well on that body. If you can live with working with the 30d for some time, then you can look at some EF-S lenses.

The EF-S 17-55 IS USM (not the standard one) doesn’t have a huge range, but seems to be very good and you could then take the Tamron 10-22 which is very good and the Canon 70-200 4L. You would be all set.

I have no particular suggestion to add to the excellent ones already posted above but instead would like to point you to the LensPlay lens database that will let you search a database of about 200 user-rated lenses according to your needs in focal range, speed and price.
I found it to be very helpful and hope you will, too.

50mm 1.8

It’s a prime lens, so you won’t be doing any zooming, but it’s tack-sharp and works great in low light.

Other than that, I guess any of the L lenses are awesome. I dunno, I’m a Nikon guy myself.

RE: 1.6x Crop Factor

Damn it! I new i should have just looked it up online. Well, at least I put “I think” in there. Bah!

I have a 20D with the 17-85 IS, 70-200/2.8IS which is all I need. The 17-85 isn’t the sharpest, but most usable. If you want to worry about sharpness in realistic circumstances, you’ll only notice the difference when you take a regular jpg and enlarge up to 20×30 or bigger. If clarity is of utmost importance, you can add a considerable amount of sharpness and contrast by shooting in RAW w/ this lens.

The other specialty lens I’ll use is a Carl Zeiss 50/1.7 w/ the EOS adapter. This is the sharpest lens I’ve found. I have a comparison here- http://gallery.real-exposure.com/gallery/579905/1/24268967

I learned that when testing both, the Canon IS lens produced better results when handheld, but the Zeiss lens was the winner when I tested on a tripod. The IS on a less ideal lens, makes up for a lot of handshake on a better lens just enough to have all that extra sharpness be a wash.