Which 'All-In-One' Lens for Canon 500D

Zascar

My girlfriend wants to get an SLR - she's pretty set on the 500D cause she wants video. I think the standard 18-55 lens is pants and I want her to get a better one. Looking for an all in one lens - I think something like 18-135mm or 18-200mm would be great. Sigma or Canon most likely but not confined to them.

My sister has the Sigma 18-200mm OS _ used it and I was very impressed with it. 200mm is really more then we need though so I think 135 would be fine too. For example, if they were the same price but the 135 is a better lens then I'd go with that.

I'd be interested to hear your opinions on these types of lenses. Price is obviously a huge factor but I want to make sure I make the right choice.

All advice appreciated
Thanks

DaireQuinlan

www.dpreview.com

Zascar

I'm very familiar with that and other similar sites but I just always find personal opinions more useful then generic reviews. Thanks

charybdis

amazon.com

Culann

I bought the Sigma 18-250 DG with IS in December. I can't remember what I paid as I also traded in 2 lenses....this was in London. It is very nice and takes nice sharp images. I have it on a 40D. I had a 17-85 and a 70-300 lens....it is handy having one lens that covers both ranges.

duffarama

For video and an all in one lens the Panasonic GH1 with the 14-140 would surely be a better choice.

crazydaize

The Canon 28-135 mm IS is a quality general purpose lens. It has a good range and would not be lost on that body.

Fionn

would you consider the EF 24 -105 L IS (much more spendy) but a great general walkabout all rounder lens.

Zascar

Unfortunately I think many of them are way out of my pricerange. I think the best one looks to be the Sigma AF18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Optical Stabilizer which is about €300. I suppose my questions is: For the same money are there any better lenses or is this the best value?

Edit: The Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is only a few quid more expensive, is it a much better lens?

Diabhal_Glas

I personally would go for a Canon 17-85 EFS, they're not as expensive as they used to be and that is plenty of zoom.
I dont know a lot about it but Ive read that the more zoom you pack into a lens in general the more you degrade image quality to put it simply. Ive used a 17-85 for three years before upgrading to a 17-40L, IMO its good glass for the price and a very nice looking lens on your Camera compared to the kit lens.
I always stick to Canon Lenses but thats just me

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-17-85mm-4-0-5-6-Lens/dp/B0002XNRG4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1268144968&sr=1-1

Zascar

Hmm, ok the 17-85 is f4 - 5.6 - whereas the canon 18-135 is F3.5 - 5.6 with a much bigger zoom. Why would the 17-85 be better?

I had the Sigma 17-70mm before and always felt like I'd like more zoom. I've used the 18-200mm sigma and thought it was great but more zoom that I needed really. So maybe the Canon 18-135 would be best?

Diabhal_Glas

It has better build quality and a ring USM motor, but the 18-135 seems to have a comparable image quality.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-Lens-Review.aspx

If you need that much zoom go for the 18 - 135

My name is Mud

Get a 50mm prime.

Bargain price, excellent image quality, great in low light and forces creativity as you zoom with your feet

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.8-II-Lens-Review.aspx