Sharp walkabout lens ?
Discussion
I have the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS which came with my 450D, it's not a bad lens I suppose but I would like more sharpness and in particular, I want a general walkabout lens with a 100mm range, something like the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM looks like it would do the job nicely. I'd also appreciate image stabilisation.
The 28-135 IS USM seems to get a reasonably good review given it's less than half the price of the similar L series lenses. Just wondering if anybody who has used this lens would describe it as being sharp ?
The 28-135 IS USM seems to get a reasonably good review given it's less than half the price of the similar L series lenses. Just wondering if anybody who has used this lens would describe it as being sharp ?
It's one of the most versatile lenses I've owned (now replaced by 24-105L) - perfect for walkabout lens. It's not quite pin-sharp wide open as L lenses (obviously considering the price difference) but it's still a brilliant lens. Ok, it's not as wide as your 18-55 but soon you'll get used to it.
Edited by Gemm on Monday 19th April 15:40
Gemm said:
It's one of the most versatile lenses I've owned (now replaced by 24-105L) - perfect for walkabout lens. It's not quite pin-sharp wide open as L lenses (obviously considering the price difference) but it's still a brilliant lens. Ok, it's not as wide as your 18-55 but soon you'll get used to it.
Thanks, just what I wanted to hear. Miffsuds had a used one for £199 . . . sounds like it'll be perfect Edited by Gemm on Monday 19th April 15:40
Thanks Before you get shot of the 18-55, you might want to try a few test shots at 28mm to see if the loss of 10mm is going to frustrate you. Sure, you can generally walk back a way for plenty of shots, but you'd have to walk a long way back before you got the equivalent difference in a landscape, for example.
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
If I had the cash, I'd love a 24-70 L, but sadly I don't have said cash!
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
If I had the cash, I'd love a 24-70 L, but sadly I don't have said cash!
Gemm said:
It's one of the most versatile lenses I've owned (now replaced by 24-105L) - perfect for walkabout lens. It's not quite pin-sharp wide open as L lenses (obviously considering the price difference) but it's still a brilliant lens. Ok, it's not as wide as your 18-55 but soon you'll get used to it.
I've got Gemm's old lens and haven't been using it as much as I thought I would...if you're interested I could be persuaded to part with it. Also have the hood, CP filter and a UV filter.Kermit power said:
Before you get shot of the 18-55, you might want to try a few test shots at 28mm to see if the loss of 10mm is going to frustrate you. Sure, you can generally walk back a way for plenty of shots, but you'd have to walk a long way back before you got the equivalent difference in a landscape, for example.
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
I use the Canon 15-85mm IS as my walkabout lens and it's lovely, but it's not particularly cheap.
havoc said:
Gemm said:
It's one of the most versatile lenses I've owned (now replaced by 24-105L) - perfect for walkabout lens. It's not quite pin-sharp wide open as L lenses (obviously considering the price difference) but it's still a brilliant lens. Ok, it's not as wide as your 18-55 but soon you'll get used to it.
I've got Gemm's old lens and haven't been using it as much as I thought I would...if you're interested I could be persuaded to part with it. Also have the hood, CP filter and a UV filter.Kermit power said:
Before you get shot of the 18-55, you might want to try a few test shots at 28mm to see if the loss of 10mm is going to frustrate you. Sure, you can generally walk back a way for plenty of shots, but you'd have to walk a long way back before you got the equivalent difference in a landscape, for example.
I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
If I had the cash, I'd love a 24-70 L, but sadly I don't have said cash!
Thanks, I plan keeping the 18-55 IS as it's not too bad, as a spare lens it'll be OK.I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as my main walkabout lens at the moment. Great in many ways, but sometimes frustrating in its lack of width. If it was on FF, it would be perfect, but it's a bit long on a crop.
If I had the cash, I'd love a 24-70 L, but sadly I don't have said cash!
I want the longer range as I like photographing people and don't really want to be in their faces with a camera, the length I get form 55mm is a bit short for that. I also have a 70-300 Tamron but that's a bit long and doesn't have IS which I've found really useful for handheld.
I've owned a Canon 17-85 EFS IS lens and found it to be very good on my crop frame camera. In 35mm full frame terms it is the equivalent of a 28-135 lens. It stayed more or less permanently attached to my camera. In good light with a decent shutter speed and f stop I have produced 20" X 30" prints that are more than acceptable. I have had some very good low light indoor shots with this as well. The IS works well. There is a review here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E... I sold it when I moved to full frame. If I was still shooting a crop frame I would still have it.
I'm not particularly pleased with my 17-85mm. I've found it soft and optically poor after seeing a mates 24-105mm. Yes I have been spoiled by looking at L glass but its amazing the amount of difference it makes. Just out of the camera, the 24-105 looks beautiful.
How good is the 15-85mm?
How good is the 15-85mm?
RobDickinson said:
Rob13 said:
How good is the 15-85mm?
Its sharp just about everywhere, built well for a non 'L' too. It vignettes wide open and has quite some distortion at the ends, but overall a great lens if you dont mind its lack of speed.Love my 17-55 though...
Rob13 said:
How good is the 15-85mm?
Probably very good but it's at least £550 new, never seen one second hand and the 28-135 only cost me £200 and I know for sure the 15-85 won't get me photos which are 2.75 x as good as the 28-135 I also wanted the extra reach and this is a walkabout lens, it'll be carried in the tank bag on the bike over the Alps, Pyrenees and up to Texel and all over France this year so something with a good reach and not too expensive but reasonable optics is ideal.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff