It’s a little too niche, John – there are plenty of other great Canon lenses we didn’t mention here, but a lot of them aren’t suitable for the everyday photographer.

Etienne Laine…I haven’t taken any shots with Canon 24mm F2.8, but my name in HS French class was Etienne, as I was told thats what Stephen translates to in French. Viva Canon and francais……..Stephen

Thanks!! The price is good so will give it a go. Its a Canon 700d

Hey Ian, the 50mm f/1.8 would be my recommendation. You didn’t mention your camera – if it’s an APS-C sensor, the 50 will translate to roughly 85mm, which is a little tight for landscapes (depending on how far back you can be from the shot), but perfect for the other things you mentioned. Obviously the 10-18 would be better suited for wide shots, but the aperture is much slower, so you wouldn’t get subject separation when shooting people/close ups. Have fun in Oz!

I tested it on a 5D Mark III at the time, Petro and it felt a bit sluggish to me! It’s such a heavy piece of glass…

Thanks Mark

That’s interesting to hear, Nestor. I can’t say I’ve had much experience with Minolta lenses, so can’t comment.

Better for the money, I mean.

Finding Minolta quality optics (AF lines or manual from the MD time) for bargain prices on eBay has turn into a habit for me.

Not that I exclude any other brands, on the contrary, but it happens to be Minolta in the end that best combines quality, condition and price.

How do you mean, Nestor? Are you asking why I think Canon is better than Minolta for lenses?

In this economic regard, reading that Canon is cheaper than its immediate competitors has surprised me a bit.

Until Reading your article, I would’ve always asserted that such praise should go to Minolta. Why do you think it’s Canon?

Thanks