Need tips on another lens.

E

enlightenedby42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 19, 2005
Messages
4,412
I can't find the thread at the moment with search disabled, but I posted a while back about recommendations for a macro lens for my girlfriend's Rebel XT. I picked up the 60mm Canon Macro based on forum member recommendations and she positively loved it.

So now I need some help with a good walkaround zoom lens. She likes Canon glass, but I'm willing to consider other brands if there's something I'd be dumb to pass up. I'm looking for something with a good depth of field without being too heavy for everyday use.

I need to try to keep it under $500. Currently, I'm looking at the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. Any thoughts on this ones, or recommendations on something better/different?

Thanks in advance!
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Does she already have the stock lens?

Tamron makes very nice lenses. 17-50/2.8 and 28-75/2.8 are my favorites for walkaround.
 
lan said:
Does she already have the stock lens?

Tamron makes very nice lenses. 17-50/2.8 and 28-75/2.8 are my favorites for walkaround.
Click to expand...


I agree for under $500, but my brother is tired of his 17-50. You might want to save up and get a 24-70 or 24-105 :) .
 
darktiger said:
I agree for under $500, but my brother is tired of his 17-50. You might want to save up and get a 24-70 or 24-105 :) .
Click to expand...
Ack! That's a lot...lol.

Yes, she has the kit lens.

So are the Tamrons the best buy in the price range? Not so much on the sub-$500 Canons like the one mentioned?
 
I just wrote up a post about a nikon lens. I'm awake.

It was about the 18-200 AF-S VR f/3.5-5.6

I don't know if Canon makes anything similar. I think Sigma does, but I haven't used their glass.
 
mwarps said:
I just wrote up a post about a nikon lens. I'm awake.

It was about the 18-200 AF-S VR f/3.5-5.6

I don't know if Canon makes anything similar. I think Sigma does, but I haven't used their glass.
Click to expand...

I have the 18-200 AF-S VR f/3.5-5.6, GREAT walk-around lens! W/O a doubt, the most versatile lens I own. If Canon makes something similar, I'd highly recommend it.
 
enlightenedby42 said:
Ack! That's a lot...lol.

Yes, she has the kit lens.

So are the Tamrons the best buy in the price range? Not so much on the sub-$500 Canons like the one mentioned?
Click to expand...

The Tamron 17-50 is sharper and faster than the 28-135, and it has a more useful walk around range. If you're going to spend $900, Canon makes a 17-55 f/2.8 IS that's really nice and gives you a pretty good wide angle.
 
Ok guys here is a question for you.... At the longer lengths, say 105mm and up do you feel the IS/OS is something that is necessary? There a slew of lenses that can be had for under $200 that cover up to 300mm but there is no stabilization.

For instance:
This Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro for $160
 
Only with a slow shutterspeed. If you stick to the "one over" rule you should be fine (x1.5 for APS-sized sensors, of course). So your 300mm would require a 1/500 shutterspeed
 
gregnash said:
Ok guys here is a question for you.... At the longer lengths, say 105mm and up do you feel the IS/OS is something that is necessary? There a slew of lenses that can be had for under $200 that cover up to 300mm but there is no stabilization.
Click to expand...

If you are shooting with a slow speed you absolutely need IS/VR/OS. Rage's 1-over rule works pretty well. With no VR, I can get away with 1/500 on at 200mm (300 effective) on my 55-200 at the long end. With VR it can actually take it down to 1/15 of a second. I saw it on a website and I was completely skeptical, but I tried it and it worked flawlessly. I was shocked.
 
I am no pro, but love shooting. I have the same lens your referenced (the Canon 28-135mm IS) You can check my flickr page at least the first few pages have been shot with that lens.
www.flickr.com/photos/fenderltd

It's a quick lens, very nice build quality. I wanted to find a lens I could use all around. The kit lens zoom was not near enough for me. I read some reviews and found this lens to be a walk around town shoot mostly everything lens. I like it. This is also the first lens I have ever bought.
 
gregnash said:
Ok guys here is a question for you.... At the longer lengths, say 105mm and up do you feel the IS/OS is something that is necessary? There a slew of lenses that can be had for under $200 that cover up to 300mm but there is no stabilization.

For instance:
This Tamron 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di LD Macro for $160
Click to expand...

Those super cheap 75-300 and 70-300 lenses are not good at all. Some of the worst out there.


(note that the Canon 70-300 IS is a very good lens though...but also much more expensive than those super cheap ones)
 
I'm a big fan of the IS/VR/OS lens... they make a huge difference. Some might think they are a crutch, but if they make the difference of capturing a great shot or getting a blurred image, I'm all for them! Sure you can crank up the shutter speed to freeze the image, but often there's only so much light. These lens add a lot of versatility, especially for a "walkaround" lens. Well worth the extra couple hundred dollar premium IMO.
 
I have been very happy with my Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS (optically stabilized). It is the first lens I purchased in addition to the kit lens with my 400D and makes for a great walk around lens for everyday stuff. It also comes in at right about $500. On a recent trip to India, this lens almost never left my camera. I'd recommend it with no reservations.
 
darktiger said:
I agree for under $500, but my brother is tired of his 17-50. You might want to save up and get a 24-70 or 24-105 :) .
Click to expand...

24-70 and 24-105 are neither cheap and in the case of 24-70 not light. The 24-105 is an ok walkaround on cropped cameras but better on 5D I believe.
 
lan said:
24-70 and 24-105 are neither cheap and in the case of 24-70 not light. The 24-105 is an ok walkaround on cropped cameras but better on 5D I believe.
Click to expand...

While it shines on a 5D, it is still awesome on a 20/30/40D/XT/XTi/450D. Both the 24-70 and 24-105. My other friend has the 18-200 OS and it's IQ is not that bad. Sigma just released the 18-125 OS today, that should be a decent lens.
 
I like my 28-135 IS, its pretty versatile. The IS is nice on it, since its kind of slow on the tele end (f5.6?).

Its got ring-USM for fast focusing, which is nice.

On a 1.6x crop camera the wide end isnt wide enough to use as your only lens, but if you can back up far enough its ok.

Pair it with a canon 10-22, and you've got a nice kit.

Im currently plotting how to cover >135mm myself ;)
 
I've used the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II for a walk around lens on my film. You must be looking at a little more telephoto with the 1.6 crop. The 28-135 will be fine for what you are looking for. The EF-S 17-85 is also another option as its a TRUE 28 to 135mm equivalent. The 28-135 is more like a 45-216.
 
see if you can dump the kit lens and save a bit more for the 24-105. Everything ive read tells me its excellent in almost everything it does (minus low light, only f/4). Includes IS too.

Only downside is the ~38mm minimum on the wide end (and the price).
 
I love my 24-105 over the 24-70, especially in places where they do not allow flash. Sometimes 2.8 is not fast enough......
 
Went to the local BB today while my fiancee was at an appointment (getting wedding makeover done) and got to play with the 40D, 5D and XTi. All I can say is HOLY SHIZZLE there is a HUGE difference in weight between the 40D/5D vs XTi/Rebel! I am assuming that the magnesium alloy casing is the culprit but damn. Anyways, completely drooling over the Prosumer line now but still think that for the learning process the XTi is going to be where it is at for me. Also, the 24-105mm that comes with the 5D is SHWEET!! Such a nice lens, fast, sharp and takes some great pics. But damn the price.....

So what is a good, somewhat cheap Stabilized lense that is a bit longer on the telephoto side. I know that the Sigma 18-200mm OS is supposed to be a great lens but I am looking for something in the $200-$300(max) range...
 
gregnash said:
So what is a good, somewhat cheap Stabilized lense that is a bit longer on the telephoto side. I know that the Sigma 18-200mm OS is supposed to be a great lens but I am looking for something in the $200-$300(max) range...
Click to expand...

No such thing for that price, if you need more in the budget for a lens, get the XT instead of the XTi
 
fugu said:
No such thing for that price, if you need more in the budget for a lens, get the XT instead of the XTi
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. You might consider the newly-released Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS. It has the newest iteration of the IS system, supposedly allowing up to 4-stops of compensation, and it costs right around $300. It is an EF-S lens though, meaning if your fiancee decides to upgrade to a full-frame body at some point, it won't work with this lens. Also, it is not currently sold in the US, so you would need to purchase it from an overseas vendor.

Here's a review (the only one I've been able to find):

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Can...on-ef-s-55-250mm-f4-56-is-test-report--review
 
I would save up for a good lens. Lens last forever. I tried to go cheap in the beginning, just to find myself spending more in the long run for good glass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top