Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Looking for an AFFORDABLE walking around lens for the 300D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:06:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am considering the EF 28-135 IS USM
I really cannot afford L glass so am looking for an 18-85 (the EF-S) or
something up to as much as a 135mm.
Someday, I will get a 70-200mm L lens but until then... I really need something
shorter.
any suggestions?

thanks
chas



....
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 9:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For a 20D or a 350D or a 300D; I, personally, would go with a 17-85
over the 28-135

But this has a lot to do with my preference for wider angles and not so
great a need for length. Since you are looking at a 70-200 later, the
17-85 is less redundant than the 28-135 once you have a 70-200,
however, you could get a 100-400 instead if you had the 28-135.

I found that 24mm is not wide enough for me a useful amount of the time
(24-70) so I picked up a 10-22 for really wide wides, whereas I think
that an 18 or 17mm wide end might have been (20D). If you have any
hankering for wides, you will likely find that the 28-135 is not wide
enough--workable, but constraining.

Both lenses are similar in optical quality (medium) and feature
functionality.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 10:33:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

chasm@texas.net wrote:
> Am considering the EF 28-135 IS USM
> I really cannot afford L glass so am looking for an 18-85 (the EF-S) or
> something up to as much as a 135mm.
> Someday, I will get a 70-200mm L lens but until then... I really need something
> shorter.
> any suggestions?

I have the 28-135IS and have found it to be a mediocre lens at best.
The IS is nice but unless you shoot static objects it really isn't much
help. My copy is somewhat soft and has bad CA. I rarely use it. Plus,
I think IS is justified more on long range telephotos than on wide or
medium range zooms.

I have owned a Sigma 18-200mm zoom since June and now take the majority
of my pictures with this lens. It has been surprisingly sharp and the
color/contrast have been very good. I don't notice any vignetting or CA
with my copy of this lens. The focus is also spot on and, to me, as
fast as the two Canon lenses I own. To get this much performance and
range from a lens that cost me $350 shipped to my door has been a
welcome surprise. If I could only have one lens I would choose this one
over about any "L" lens with the exception of the new 24-105L. I find
myself recommending the Sigma 18-200mm to many people.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 8:21:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> For a 20D or a 350D or a 300D; I, personally, would go with a 17-85
> over the 28-135
>
> But this has a lot to do with my preference for wider angles and not so
> great a need for length. Since you are looking at a 70-200 later, the
> 17-85 is less redundant than the 28-135 once you have a 70-200,
> however, you could get a 100-400 instead if you had the 28-135.

Pretty much what he said. I got the 17-85IS with my 350XT, and it's a fine
"walkaround" (still not sure what that means) lens. Reasonably sharp, gets
the picture more often than not, and the IS capabilities blow you away at
slow speeds. But for shooting bicycle races, the 85 (136mm full-frame
equivalent) isn't quite long enough. So I picked up a "baby" 70-200, the F4
L-series. Nice. Very nice. Now I've got the full range covered, with just
two lenses, and just enough overlap that you're not constantly wanting to
change from one to the other.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 11:30:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<chasm@texas.net> wrote in message
news:cpouh1pevo207qevjh1ef3hlshsr4cufne@4ax.com...
> Am considering the EF 28-135 IS USM
> I really cannot afford L glass so am looking for an 18-85 (the EF-S) or
> something up to as much as a 135mm.
> Someday, I will get a 70-200mm L lens but until then... I really need
> something
> shorter.
> any suggestions?

At the risk of being flamed by Randall<g>, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 gets good
reviews. It's light, cheap, fast, and sharp. Mine is sharp wide open at the
long end of the range, but needs to be stopped down at the wide end (on the
300D). Focus is slow, and it occassionally hunts, and it's not "L" build
quality.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:58:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 17:06:49 -0500, chasm wrote:

> Am considering the EF 28-135 IS USM
> I really cannot afford L glass so am looking for an 18-85 (the EF-S) or
> something up to as much as a 135mm.
> Someday, I will get a 70-200mm L lens but until then... I really need
> something shorter.
> any suggestions?

For an affordable, small, reasonably sharp lens with a good general
purpose zoom range, you can't beat the Sigma 18-50 f3.5-5.6 D. Mine cost
me $125 new, and that was RETAIL! (I was unwilling to wait a week for mail
order shipping to save $20.)

Stefan
!