for a Canon 60d, which one would you choose?

Let’s say, in the first instance that price was no object, then assume a small budget of around £200 to £300.

So, I guess, two recommendations in total.

28-300 f2,8 L for a pretty much do it all.
Closer to budget Canon 17-40 f4 L is a lens that gave me a lot of pleasure and is a very capable piece of kit for a budget price.
I wouldn’t touch anything that wasn’t an L lens and would rather buy second hand than down the quality scale.
Caveat: I have no idea for what you want to use it.

Totally depends on what kind of subject matter.

For a cheap option I’d go for the big compromise and get either an 18-250 or 18-300 Sigma. Seen results at both ends I’d be happy enough with for my purposes.

For budget (assuming it’s a crop sensor) then one of these: http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/sigma/17-50mm-f2-8-ex-dc-os-lens-canon-ef-s-77912/show.html

Got one for my nikon, my favourite lens by far.

My interests have shifted towards landscapes rather than Motorsport and windsurfing so I’d probably go with this.

https://www.mpb.com/en-uk/used-equipment/used-photo-and-video/used-lenses/used-canon-fit-lenses/sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5-6-ex-dc-hsm-canon-ef-fit/sku-634845/

On full frame and one lens I usually go with a 24-70 or a 15mm fisheye.

I used a Canon 100D with an EF-S 24mm pancake lens, equivalent to the EF-S 40mm pancake. I only really bought it because of the small size and lightness – I had various other decent EF-S lenses already, but it’s become the one I use most of the time.

It has a similar field of view to the human eye, gives really sharp results and because it’s so small it gets used on outings when I simply wouldn’t bother with a bigger. heavier lens. It’s not a zoom, so you have to walk backwards and forwards and stuff, but I’ve been properly surprised by how well it works.

I guess it depends on what you’re photographing. I have no idea on the money no object front…

If I were only allowed one lens I wouldn’t want to bother with an SLR. I’d sell the SLR and but a good quality compact.

1 lens. That’s like saying 1 bike!!

On that body probably a 24 – 70 f2.8 maybe for a fairly general but awesome lens but depends what you shoot most of TBH.

For a cheapy then yes the fastest sigma that suits your length requirements.

24-70 lives on my 5D most of the time.

16-36L

I’d say pick a focal length you want then see what you can get at f2.8 or lower, speed makes a real difference.

As mentioned above the 24mm EFS is tiny, light, fast and takes pretty damn good pictures.

However, there’a loads of reasons to buy other lenses, it’s part of the fun!

I used the Canon ‘nifty fifty’ for a decade and IMO it blew away any lower budget wideangle/telephoto for sharpness but with the crop factor I was always walking backwards. Given sufficient room it took great portraits and lovely sharp landscapes. Tried a 40mm pancake and that was great for most stuff except close portraits where the foreshortening effect became a problem and faces looked too distorted/unnaturally proportioned. However – just like the 50mm it is super light and ultra-portable compared to any kit lens/telephoto. A big plus for biking.

Wider landscapes I stitched 2 or more frames from the 50mm, because I generally dislike wide-angle lenses – the way the backgrounds look ‘sucked in’ and far away.

Now for landscapes I use a compact camera with (28-112 equivalent) zoom and all my ‘problems’ have gone away! Still use the DSLR + 50mm for portraits and closer cropped landscapes/still life simply for the creamy bokeh and edge to edge sharpness.

Lens choice disregarding budget wholly depends on your main subject matter. I find a prime lens to be excellent discipline and a creative companion. Liken it to becoming a master at painting in one medium rather than a so-so jack of all trades.

I’d say pick a focal length you want then see what you can get at f2.8 or lower, speed makes a real difference.

As an amateur whilst a fast lens obviously allows depth of field creativity the huge sensor improvements that have recently been made with the usability of larger ISOs and therefore an ability to take handheld photos worth keeping in low light at less impressive F stops means my desire to bankrupt myself with fast lenses has waned.

Closer to budget Canon 17-40 f4 L is a lens that gave me a lot of pleasure and is a very capable piece of kit for a budget price.

I tried one briefly on a cropped sensor camera. I didn’t find it an exciting range

I lived with a 18-70 3.5-4.5 as my only lens on a Nikon for 6 years. Now a days the Nikon equivalent would be the 16-85. So money no object I’d get the 15-85 Canon. If saving money a used 17-68 would be cheap and verstatile

If you need to take photos indoors without flash then take some one elses advice

If you are starting from scratch then look at Nikon. Mountains of cheap versatile kit lenses. One of the few real differences between the 2 manafacturers in the real world

28-300 f2.8 L for a pretty much do it all.

Does that exist? Sounds amazing!

In your price range, I lived with my Tamron 17-50 f2.8 for a year quite happily. Think they now do a stabilized version for a little more too.

I must say I am a fan of Canon’s own colour though, but the equivalent canon lens is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm F/2.8 at £500+

Does that exist? Sounds amazing!

Possibly not, you’ll have to correct me. Go on you know you want to.

28 300, but not f2.8 🙁

But under £2000 😀

But wasted on a crop body

I only have one lens by choice. A 50mm is all I need or want. For money no objet I’d have a Leica 5mm Summilux but you can’t use that on a Canon.

Obviously if I could only have one lens it’d probably be something versatile.

However, like others have said, the Canon 24mm pancake is excellent and hasn’t been off my camera for weeks. Small, light, fast, sharp, cheap, and a great focal length for everyday use. Love it.

16-300mm tampon – https://m.dpreview.com/reviews/tamron-16-300mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-pzd-macro – relatively small and light (for what it is), image stabilisation and not bad quality

For that money you could get a 24mm pancake, and a 50mm 1.8. 24 would be ideal as a general walkabout and the 50 for people pictures.

For a single lens, 35mm F2 IS is nice, although I used it on full frame Canon, I use the same focal length on a Nikon crop body now, and still find it useful.

Otherwise a used 15-85mm if you really must get a zoom lens 😉

300mm tampon

Sounds uncomfortable.

24 mm f2. I like depth of field and a nice wide panorama with near subject matter.

It sits on a Nikon FM and has taken many wedding shots. Probably not what you had in mind though 😉

Ah. Nostalgia here for the depth of field scale…

300mm tampon

Sounds uncomfortable. [/quote]

Or maybe not…..

Ah. Nostalgia here for the depth of field scale…

It’s utterly gash that lenses don’t typically have these today. It does limit the usability of lenses.

my desire to bankrupt myself with fast lenses has waned

I was more thinking these:

24mm pancake, and a 50mm 1.8. 24

Should be able to have both for about £200-£250.

However, yes, the more versatile lenses at 2.8 are eye-wateringly expensive, and modern sensors are great at eliminating noise.

Price no object: EF 50mm f/1.2L

Budget up to £300: Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC LD

24 mm f2.

TiRed, I’ve had the 35mm version of that lens for 25 years, first on my FE then on half a dozen DSLRs until my D800 now. If I’m going for a wander, that’s the lens I put on. Such a characterful lens. If I’ve coat pockets or a bag, I’ll carry a 50mm f1.8; but often it’ll come back unused. I persevered when it went from SLR to cropped DSLR (D70s!) and I did use the 50mm a lot when I first got a full-frame sensor, but the Nikkor didn’t take long to get reaccustomed to. If I want lens versatility, autofocus and pin sharpness, I’ve a 24-70 f2.8. Excellent kit, but feels a touch sterile at times.

For a crop sensor, a 24mm or 35mm would probably be my choice if I was limited to a single lens. Around 35-50mm in ‘real’ terms and good for pretty much anything. Not sure that would change if the budget was unlimited, I’d just go for the f1.4 version. That said, if my budget is unlimited I’d probably not be using a crop.

I would find a nifty 50 a bit limiting as an only lens. But I’m a bit of a wide boy.

So 24mm would be better. But a fast one is a huge amount of money

Sigma £600
Nikon £1700
Canon £1300
Samyang £479

24 / 35mm either for a cropped sensor
50mm for a full body

24-105L f4 for a first cheap(ish) do it all lens

then save for the big ones!

I’m with a couple of guys above…

50mm f1.4…it make ‘me’ think about every shot and forces ‘me’ to consider the whole setting as opposed to a zoom lens which make ‘me’ lazy.

For the money, the low light functionality takes some beating too. Used it this summer in Portugal for a shoot at sunset on the beach and the quality of photos (on a 70D) made me very happy!

Like several above, I’d go prime.

Nikon 35mm f1.8 in this case on a crop sensor.

Ditch the slow standard zoom and go prime.
A fast 35 or 50 ( 28 or 35 on APS-C ) then a 85 ( 50 or 60 on APS-C ) then 21 ( 16 on APS-C )

“If your photos aren’t good enough, then you’re not close enough” – Robert Capa

28 f1.8 as it’s whats on the front of my LeicaQ and I can’t afford anything else now.

But,even before that (and I still do) have a 24 on the front of my Pentax APS-c nearly all the time, and a 35 on my film Cannon. I do like a little wider though.

Tri-X

Is that coincidence or is it a reference to the Kodak film stock? Tri-X 400 is my personal favourite for B&W.

Yep – that film is great; back to shooting more than ever and less digital.
Having said that 4k video is just amazing – so I think the combination of video and B&W film is the future.

Tri-X 400:

[url=https://flic.kr/p/PJb2Fy]Briony – Transitions[/url] by Greg Turner, on Flickr

I pretty much have my 24-105L on mine all the time, though it’s not quite fast enough in lower light. Great lens and well built, should last ages and you can recoup most of what you pay if/ when you upgrade. Could pick up a decent second hand one for your budget. I’d Love the 24-70 but it’s a fair amount of money…