Lens Advice

[JD]

(OH my spelling in the title, Schoolboy error!)



I have had my 350D for a month or so now

I only have the kit lens on it, an 18-55 one

I am after something with a bit more zoom, but that I can keep on the camera for stuff that is close in

I have my eye on the 28-135 with IS, which I can barely believe only costs in the region of £250...


ANYWAY...

Part of the reason I want to change the lens, is the Kit lens supplied feels Very cheap and nasty, the focusing front part of the lens can be rattled about inside the lens, which is VERY annoying when turning a polarizer on the front, as it knocks it out of focus

I am worried that the 28-135 which seems very cheap, is going to be the same, does anyone have this very lens?


also... I take a lot of pictures of cars, I'm worried that I will miss the 10mm difference from the kit lens (that I was thinking of selling to fund other bits)

so if I do sell it, what is a good, low priced wide angle that will complement the 28-135 lens?

Cheers for advice

Edited by JD on Wednesday 22 August 23:45

[Kinky]

Title fixed

[RobDickinson]

Remember 10mm is realy 16mm narrower at the widest. Try the kit lens at 28mm and see how you like that as your minimal FOV, its OK if you can step back enough (I use a 50mm prime alot).

Also consider stuff like the sigma 17-70mm, canon do a cracling 28-105 which is cheap etc.

Your likely to get a 70-200/300 in the future and 70-90odd is fine for a walk about tele end.

[flat-planedCrank]

JD said:

(OH my spelling in the title, Schoolboy error!)



I have had my 350D for a month or so now

I only have the kit lens on it, an 18-55 one

I am after something with a bit more zoom, but that I can keep on the camera for stuff that is close in

I have my eye on the 28-135 with IS, which I can barely believe only costs in the region of £250...



ANYWAY...

Part of the reason I want to change the lens, is the Kit lens supplied feels Very cheap and nasty, the focusing front part of the lens can be rattled about inside the lens, which is VERY annoying when turning a polarizer on the front, as it knocks it out of focus

I am worried that the 28-135 which seems very cheap, is going to be the same, does anyone have this very lens?


also... I take a lot of pictures of cars, I'm worried that I will miss the 10mm difference from the kit lens (that I was thinking of selling to fund other bits)

so if I do sell it, what is a good, low priced wide angle that will complement the 28-135 lens?

Cheers for advice

Edited by JD on Wednesday 22 August 23:45

Hi

Do you have a rough price range for the lenses you are looking at ?

The 28-135 has a reasonable reputation and certainly looks like heck of the lens for the money when you remember its image stabilised as well. If you can find it for £250 then i'd go for it I generally see it for around £300.

(For weighty money of the same range i'd take a look at: Canon 24-70 f2.8 or Canon 24-105 f4)

If your looking for a uwa to team that with then they tend to start at about £300 :
Sigma 10-20 - £320-£350
Tonika 12-24 - ~£350
Tamron 11-18 - ~£350
Canon 10-22 - £480-£500+

The Canon seems to be regarded as the pick of that bunch, but then there is the price difference
There is a small review here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digital-wide-zooms...
Its a nikon review, but there is note about the canon 10-20 at the end basically stating that its rather superb

All these lenses should be on the review sites as well, eg. :
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/


As has been mentioned, if you are willing to trade that extra reach for some higher quality optics then you will be able to look at eg.:
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 (~£260), Sigma 18-50 f2.8 (~£280), or even the Canon 17-55 f2.8 (~£630)


Finally , I'd decide if a 'superzoom' would fit your needs. They tend to have a range of about 18-200mm but can have some compromises to make for that extreme reach.
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 (~£240)
Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS (~£450) [image stabilised]
Tamron 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 (~£250)
Tamron 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 (~£300)


Cheers .

[JD]

Thanks a Great deal

Cheers for sorting the Title Kinky


Quinny - The quality feel of the lens, is at the moment one of the main reasons I want rid of it, feels awful. Also have battery grip on Order

RobD - I have just been out, and set the lens to what I reckon would be about 28mm, I really don't want to lose that extra wide are of the 18mm,

Flat - The 28-135 IS canon is sold by an eBay shop for around £220 plus the delivery!, so seems a bargain


the Tamron 18 - 200 with IS you mention, that sounds fantastic,

I'm not looking for that amount of zoom, but being able to go low as 18mm and still get me over the 130mm I am after sounds good. But with that, what kind of sacrifices will I incur? As it sounds to good to be true?

As for what I'm willing to spend, I don't have a set budget, but I'm no Pro, I just like to go for what seams the best VFM

is there anything fixed focal length say around 15 - 20 mm?

[RobDickinson]

JD said:

Thanks a Great deal

is there anything fixed focal length say around 15 - 20 mm?

Oh mate you dont want to go for 'primes' if your on a budget...

Look at the tamron 17-50 f2.8, sharp, fast, well built & about the range of the kit lens (which is pants).

For IS look at the 17-85IS from canon, its OK, not the best but a good range, or the 17-55IS F2.8 which is a lot of money.

Or the sigma 17-70f2.8-4.5 which is OK and nto to expensive.

ANY 'superzoom' like the 10* 18-200 will be compromised, there OK but IMO may as well go back to a prosumer fixed lens.

[JD]

Cool, cheers mate

jut had a look at that Tamron one,

I think I will get the 28-135 IS canon then, and then something like the tamron 17-50

should sort me out and I can then be rid of the kit lens. I do hanker for massive wide angle and fisheye, but I think they are a tad out of my budget at the moment

cheers for the help

[taaffy]

I've recently bought an eos 400d...

I've added these:

Canon 50mm f1.8 11
Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5
Sigma 50-150mm f2.8


More than happy with these lenses which give me the quality that I need at this stage in my photography.

[VxDuncan]

Personally I'd go for a 10-20mm or similar to go with the 28-135mm. You'll want something wider later on so might as well do it now, and save the overlap between the canon and 17-50.

For what it's worth a lot of people start with superzooms, like the 18-200's. Then progess to faster, higher quality std. zooms, like the tamron 17-50 F2.8, then onto primes...

I got sick of my superzooms as the quality was pants (simga 18-125mm). Currently using Sigma 10-20mm, Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 and 2x tele. Took >1000 shots a week on holiday and whilst I had to change lenses a lot (up to 20x an hour I guess during festivals etc!) it was never a chore and the I was the limiting factor in the photos not the lenses...

After my Africa trip I was gutted when I got back and found the photos were slightly soft and were plagued with purple fringing. My Mountain gorilla shots were ruined. 8o(

[JD]

Ok

Still not bought a new lens yet

I know have it down to a 17-85 F/4-5.6 or the aforementioned 28-135 F/3.5-5.6

Both are USM and IS and cost the same amount

what's thoughts? my thinking is that if I buy the 17-85 it will keep me going without having to go for a wide-angle BUT won't have the top end zoom

basically the opposite of problem with the 28-135 as 28mm simply wont be short enough so will leave me wanting in that respect


So, its down to get the 28-135 next and spend money on a wideangle, or buy the 17-85 and then think about shelling money into a decent zoom at a later date



ALSO, what's the deal with these 1.4x and 2x teleconverters? are they any good? for what they offer in terms of more zoom, something has got to suffer?

Cheers

JD

[RobDickinson]

All IMO

The 17-85 is compromised and expensive for what it is. Its better than the kit lens but I wouldnt be happy buying it. Soft, distorts and lots of CA. An average consumer zoom for more than average price I think. It was canons first attempt at a walk round crop sensor lens based on the 28-135IS but trimmed down for croped cameras thus 28-135 is the wrong focal length for croped cameras.


As for teleconvertors, there usefull for some longer guality zooms & primes (canon ones dont fit every lens). You loose fstops (1 with the 1.4 and 2 with the 2x) so you have to use fast(ish) glass with them to retain autofocus (f5.6 max usualy). They also degrade the image opticaly but usualy not much. There also expensive and require you to remove the lens to fit etc.

[flat-planedCrank]

JD said:

Ok

Still not bought a new lens yet

I know have it down to a 17-85 F/4-5.6 or the aforementioned 28-135 F/3.5-5.6

Both are USM and IS and cost the same amount

what's thoughts? my thinking is that if I buy the 17-85 it will keep me going without having to go for a wide-angle BUT won't have the top end zoom

basically the opposite of problem with the 28-135 as 28mm simply wont be short enough so will leave me wanting in that respect


So, its down to get the 28-135 next and spend money on a wideangle, or buy the 17-85 and then think about shelling money into a decent zoom at a later date



ALSO, what's the deal with these 1.4x and 2x teleconverters? are they any good? for what they offer in terms of more zoom, something has got to suffer?

Cheers

JD

I suppose it boils down to what you shoot most often:
Do you often shoot wide angles ?
Are you more likely to want a walk-around lens to leave on the camera, then swap to a wide angle for the rare circumstances you need it ?

I have the 17-85 (got it as a kit) not sure i'd like to pay £360-400 for one new. On mine, there is a fair bit of barrel distortion (can fix in post), can have soft corners at the wide end, also shows significant barrel-creep. On the plus side it focuses fast, its light, and of course doesn't have a rotating front element.
Personally, for a wide angle at that sorta money i'd be looking at a shorter range, but f2.8 constant, probably Sigma / Tamron. (Then, in time, team that with a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 for general use)

For me, 85mm just isn't enough zoom for a walk-around lens. So i'd be looking at the longer lens for general use + a super-wide zoom.


(Actually, i'd probably look at lumping all the money together and seeing if i could stretch for a 24-105 f4 and worry about the super-wide another day )

All IMO of course

[DavidY]

I have a 17-85EFS bought one month old £260 (inc polariser and P&P) from a private seller, for this kind of money its a great lens and my normal walkabout lens. There is one at MPBphotographic for £269 s/h (though not listed on their website, see here http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread...

Otherwise why not look at the Sigma 17-70 which is well liked.

davidy

[Gemm]

As already mentioned, it's totally up to your needs. And only you can answer that. I've had 28-135 and it was wide enough for my needs. If you have 28mm, you just find a subject that's suitable for 28mm using your creative mind .

[Podie]

JD - a couple of thoughts, from someone who is still quite new to this photography malarkey…

1) The 18-55 kit lenses vary enormously – we (the missus and I) are lucky enough to have one that gives some nice results (the other was pretty average)

2) You wont recoup much by selling it, maybe £30.

3) Do you need the IS..? What benefit on IS in such a short range? (this is a general question BTW). When we replaced our kit lenses were went for the 28-105 and the 24-85. The former has a macro function, so you can get arty if you like…

4) Despite keeping one 18-55 we’ve rarely used it since buying the above lenses… do you really need the extra 10mm range..?

5) Don’t knock the option of buying second hand kit – there are some bargains to be had out there.

6) If you want something a bit longer, check out the 75-300 lenses (the IS is worth it there, IMO).

[hawkaye]

bite the bullet and go for the 100-400, cracking lens

[Podie]

hawkaye said:

bite the bullet and go for the 100-400, cracking lens

Would have thought the 70-200 would be better in this instance.

(f2.8 IS version is on my shopping list)

[JD]

Podie said:

JD - a couple of thoughts, from someone who is still quite new to this photography malarkey…

1) The 18-55 kit lenses vary enormously – we (the missus and I) are lucky enough to have one that gives some nice results (the other was pretty average)

2) You wont recoup much by selling it, maybe £30.

3) Do you need the IS..? What benefit on IS in such a short range? (this is a general question BTW). When we replaced our kit lenses were went for the 28-105 and the 24-85. The former has a macro function, so you can get arty if you like…

4) Despite keeping one 18-55 we’ve rarely used it since buying the above lenses… do you really need the extra 10mm range..?

5) Don’t knock the option of buying second hand kit – there are some bargains to be had out there.

6) If you want something a bit longer, check out the 75-300 lenses (the IS is worth it there, IMO).

IS im not hugely interested in, as there isn't a huge amount of Zoom in either, I just found these two on ebay, hard to know what their is

the extra range, a little more than the 55 would be nice

My main reason for upgrading is just to not use the kit lens, the front element is wobbly and as it turns is annoying as hell to use with the polariser

I really just want something a little better quality feel, I think the two you suggested, the 28-105 sounds good, I wouldn't mind the minimum of 28mm for only around a £100 outlay*, but I did if I was spending £250 on what would be the main walkabout lens

• assuming this is the 28-105 you were meaning:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-28-105mm-28-105-f-3...

another noob question, how hand-holdable would 105mm be? bright sunlight only?

[Podie]

JD said:

• assuming this is the 28-105 you were meaning:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EF-28-105mm-28-105-f-3...

another noob question, how hand-holdable would 105mm be? bright sunlight only?

Yep, same lens (reviews say to make sure it's II). Check www.mpbphotographic.co.uk as they sometimes have them in secondhand (may or may not be cheaper than fleabay).

Photos on this thread --> http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... <-- were taken with the lens. Was a bit of a dull day in places, but a review of the shots will clearly show when the sun comes out

This one is a fairly nice example of what it can do... shot through glass at over 100mph from fellow PHer Neil Bolton's BMW.

[Podie]

To add to this... my other half has just said that the lens isn't too heavy to use all day (she finds the 75-300 IS a tad heavy).

Bright sunlight doesn't appear to be an issue, although I have purchased the appropriate Canon lens hood (eBay is you friend here!).

Don't get me wrong, it's not an L series lens, but it does seem to represent a good step forward for sensible outlay. We noticed the quality immediately in terms of construction and in the photos.

If you've got any specific questions on the lens, feel free to post them here or drop me a line.