Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My next lens...advice

P

Puckman1

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2012
77
0
I'm fairly new to the world of photography. Been doing it for the past 2 months or so.
I own the Canon T3i (and have been fairly pleased with it so far).
Current glass complement: Kit 18-55, 28mm/1.8 prime, 50mm/1.4 prime.

I love those 2 primes, but they're not exactly the most versatile in terms of "walk-around" lenses. I feel like i need something that covers a bit more of a telephoto range (>100mm). I figure something like the Canon EF 28-135 would give me both ends of the range for when I don't want to carry around the primes (28 being wide enough for general purposes, and really 100+ being versatile enough for portraits, wildlife (not in a professional way), hiking, street photography etc.

So:
1) Is that the way to go? Does this make sense?
2) Is that 28-135 a smart choice?
3) Are there other suggestions/alternatives i should consider?

Let's assume that the L price point is not for me (i'm not ok spending more than, say $750 for this walkaround lens).
 
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
I have the 28-135 and it works well. I'm not a professional - and most of my usage is taking pictures of my daughter and/or trips. I shoot a ton with my nifty 50 and for all the rest - that lends.

Puckman1 said:
I'm fairly new to the world of photography. Been doing it for the past 2 months or so.
I own the Canon T3i (and have been fairly pleased with it so far).
Current glass complement: Kit 18-55, 28mm/1.8 prime, 50mm/1.4 prime.

I love those 2 primes, but they're not exactly the most versatile in terms of "walk-around" lenses. I feel like i need something that covers a bit more of a telephoto range (>100mm). I figure something like the Canon EF 28-135 would give me both ends of the range for when I don't want to carry around the primes (28 being wide enough for general purposes, and really 100+ being versatile enough for portraits, wildlife (not in a professional way), hiking, street photography etc.

So:
1) Is that the way to go? Does this make sense?
2) Is that 28-135 a smart choice?
3) Are there other suggestions/alternatives i should consider?

Let's assume that the L price point is not for me (i'm not ok spending more than, say $750 for this walkaround lens).
Click to expand...
 
K

kevinfulton.ca

macrumors 6502
Aug 29, 2011
284
1
Puckman1 said:
I'm fairly new to the world of photography. Been doing it for the past 2 months or so.
I own the Canon T3i (and have been fairly pleased with it so far).
Current glass complement: Kit 18-55, 28mm/1.8 prime, 50mm/1.4 prime.

I love those 2 primes, but they're not exactly the most versatile in terms of "walk-around" lenses. I feel like i need something that covers a bit more of a telephoto range (>100mm). I figure something like the Canon EF 28-135 would give me both ends of the range for when I don't want to carry around the primes (28 being wide enough for general purposes, and really 100+ being versatile enough for portraits, wildlife (not in a professional way), hiking, street photography etc.

So:
1) Is that the way to go? Does this make sense?
2) Is that 28-135 a smart choice?
3) Are there other suggestions/alternatives i should consider?

Let's assume that the L price point is not for me (i'm not ok spending more than, say $750 for this walkaround lens).
Click to expand...

Personally, I've never been a fan of those low cost extended range type zooms (Wide to telephoto). You tend to be paying more for the built in stabilization and USM then you are for their optical quality. It sounds like you've got your mid to wide angles covered so if you need a telephoto I'd highly recommend saving a little extra and getting the 70-200mm f4 L. It's roughly $100 more and delivers stunning IQ for the price. It's also quite small and light. If you carried one of these with your 18-55 you'd have a nice wide range without much weight. I know changing lenses is a bit of a pain, but in this case I think it would be a good trade off. Over time, maybe replace your 18-55 with the 17-55 f2.8 IS or 24-70 f4 IS L and you'll have a killer walk around kit!
 
P

Puckman1

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2012
77
0
kevinfulton.ca said:
Personally, I've never been a fan of those low cost extended range type zooms (Wide to telephoto). You tend to be paying more for the built in stabilization and USM then you are for their optical quality. It sounds like you've got your mid to wide angles covered so if you need a telephoto I'd highly recommend saving a little extra and getting the 70-200mm f4 L. It's roughly $100 more and delivers stunning IQ for the price. It's also quite small and light. If you carried one of these with your 18-55 you'd have a nice wide range without much weight. I know changing lenses is a bit of a pain, but in this case I think it would be a good trade off. Over time, maybe replace your 18-55 with the 17-55 f2.8 IS or 24-70 f4 IS L and you'll have a killer walk around kit!
Click to expand...

This makes sense to me. I'll look into the 70-200 in question.

Keep the comments coming.
 
ocabj

ocabj

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2009
548
202
Puckman1 said:
Let's assume that the L price point is not for me (i'm not ok spending more than, say $750 for this walkaround lens).
Click to expand...

You should be able to get a 24-105 f/4L IS used in mint condition for $700 or less. The prices have dropped quite a bit because the market is saturated with them (people buying 5D kits with 24-105 lenses and who are trying to sell them to get money back).

I actually picked one up a couple weeks ago off the Canon forums for $735 shipped, but if you check the forums, there are copies for for under $700.
 
M

mono1980

macrumors 6502
Feb 15, 2005
420
190
Lansing, MI
I owned the 28-135 for years, and while it's range is totally awesome, I was never thrilled with its image quality. Just my 2 cents.
 
P

Puckman1

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2012
77
0
mono1980 said:
I owned the 28-135 for years, and while it's range is totally awesome, I was never thrilled with its image quality. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Good to know. And your recommendation instead for that usage?
 
P

Policar

macrumors 6502a
Nov 21, 2004
662
7
28mm is pretty tight on a t3i... Feels almost like a 50mm on FF. Not a wide lens, really, and the image quality is sure to be worse than the quality of the kit lens.

You own a 28mm lens already so if you know you won't go wider than that, the 28-135mm might make sense, but I've heard only bad things about it (almost bought one but was dissuaded).

The 70-200mm f4 L is pretty impressive for the money and not as heavy as you might think. The 55-250mm IS is very cheap and sometimes goes on sale for under $200 (I think). It's not terrible and is very small. I'd also consider the 15-85mm over the 28-135mm for sure, but if you like longer lenses I could see choosing otherwise. Having the right focal lengths (and speed) matters way more than image quality unless you plan to print very big.
 
O

OreoCookie

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2001
2,727
90
Sendai, Japan
I don't think the 28-135 mm is a good lens, quite the contrary, it's one of the weakest lenses in Canon's line-up. If you want a walk-around zoom lens, the 24-105 mm is a much better option. Regarding the 70-200 mm, I don't know why it has been suggested in this thread, it's certainly a very good lens, but due to its focal length, it's not a walk-around lens.
 
B

Bear

macrumors G3
Jul 23, 2002
8,088
5
Sol III - Terra
OreoCookie said:
I don't think the 28-135 mm is a good lens, quite the contrary, it's one of the weakest lenses in Canon's line-up. If you want a walk-around zoom lens, the 24-105 mm is a much better option. Regarding the 70-200 mm, I don't know why it has been suggested in this thread, it's certainly a very good lens, but due to its focal length, it's not a walk-around lens.
Click to expand...
I think the 70-200 was mentioned because Puckman1 (original poster) mentioned wildlife.

In general 2 zoom lens are required to cover what Puckman1 said he likes to photograph. The 24-105 would cover most walking around. And something longer for the rest of it.
 
P

Puckman1

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2012
77
0
Thanks guys. I just caught up on this thread. I appreciate all the feedback and suggestions. I'll keep researching...
 
MCAsan

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,587
442
Atlanta
Tamrom 18-270 PZD for a crop body. Do the research on how many times it has been recommended in PP, OP, and other mags. It is my walk around lens for crop. For FF, I stick with 24-105 as the walkaround.
 
ijohn.8.80

ijohn.8.80

macrumors 65816
Jul 7, 2012
1,246
2
Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
MCAsan said:
Tamrom 18-270 PZD for a crop body. Do the research on how many times it has been recommended in PP, OP, and other mags. It is my walk around lens for crop. For FF, I stick with 24-105 as the walkaround.
Click to expand...

"All-in-all the lens may be a tad better than Canon's 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS but if you're looking for high image quality rather than convenience you should look elsewhere." Is the bottom line of PhotoZone's review of the Tamron 18-270mm (PZD is for Nikon, and rates just as low). 2 out of 5 stars for image quality.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/412-tamron_18270_3563vc_canon?start=2
 
TheDrift-

TheDrift-

macrumors 6502a
Mar 8, 2010
879
1,400
whoRichard said:
24-70 L version 2 :cool: seems like an optimal lens for walking around
Click to expand...

Optimal price too! I'd go for the 25 105, pretty solid alrounder which seems to be what your after.. for range maybe look at the 55-250, great lens for the money.

If money is no object then the 24 70 2.8 v2 as suggested above and the 70-200 2.8 isii is a tough combination to beat..tho i suspect that would be around 4k in lenses :eek:
 
L

lilChrissy

macrumors newbie
Jun 28, 2012
3
0
Trade the kit lens and the 28mm for the 15-85. Great walk around, IQ, doesn't weigh like L glass.
 
NZed

NZed

macrumors 65816
Jan 24, 2011
1,136
1
Canada, Eh?
im afraid 28 wouldnt be wide enough on a cropped body.

But if you had 10-22 and a 24-105, thats a better combo imo
 
nateo200

nateo200

macrumors 68030
Feb 4, 2009
2,906
42
Upstate NY
You don't feel you have a walk around lens with a 28 1.8 and a 50 1.4? Damn...maybe your a bit too heavy on the zoom but I tend to gravitate towards primes for there sharper quality, although the 70-200 (if you get the right one) is tack sharp. I own the 35 2.0, 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8. I can honestly say I love the EF 85mm ƒ/1.8 USM because it is insane sharp but I wish I had grabbed the 100mm which is just as sharp (EF 100mm ƒ/2.0 USM) as I will be shooting both crop and full frame. My choice for my next lens will be either the 135mm ƒ/2L, 135mm ƒ/2.8 with soft focus, 200mm ƒ/2.8L, or one of the wonderful 70-200mm's. You could easily have a full set up with a 24-70 ƒ/4 and 70-200 ƒ/4...but I find that is only useful info for full frame/APS-H users who can jack up the ISO and stay clean...if your camera can't go past 6400 clean then I find the faster aperture 70-200's in the ƒ/2.8 range to be a must or better yet the even faster aperture primes like the 135mm ƒ/2L...


When I look at glass like this however, I begin to think about the need for a high quality camera body, theres no doubt I could take a fine picture with my 550D without the need for a 1D X or whatever but I always manage to take pictures in low light areas and the 550D and the rebel series just can't do what a 6D/5D Mk.II/1D Mk.IV/1D X can do with low light...it just is a whole different level...not saying you need one of those bodies just something to keep in mind. Also consider buying only EF glass if you plan on upgrading to a full frame body as if your serious about photography you'll end up getting one eventually and be excited to mount all your lenses on your new camera.
 
P

Puckman1

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 5, 2012
77
0
nateo200 said:
You don't feel you have a walk around lens with a 28 1.8 and a 50 1.4? Damn...maybe your a bit too heavy on the zoom but I tend to gravitate towards primes for there sharper quality, although the 70-200 (if you get the right one) is tack sharp. I own the 35 2.0, 50 1.8 and the 85 1.8. I can honestly say I love the EF 85mm ƒ/1.8 USM because it is insane sharp but I wish I had grabbed the 100mm which is just as sharp (EF 100mm ƒ/2.0 USM) as I will be shooting both crop and full frame. My choice for my next lens will be either the 135mm ƒ/2L, 135mm ƒ/2.8 with soft focus, 200mm ƒ/2.8L, or one of the wonderful 70-200mm's. You could easily have a full set up with a 24-70 ƒ/4 and 70-200 ƒ/4...but I find that is only useful info for full frame/APS-H users who can jack up the ISO and stay clean...if your camera can't go past 6400 clean then I find the faster aperture 70-200's in the ƒ/2.8 range to be a must or better yet the even faster aperture primes like the 135mm ƒ/2L...


When I look at glass like this however, I begin to think about the need for a high quality camera body, theres no doubt I could take a fine picture with my 550D without the need for a 1D X or whatever but I always manage to take pictures in low light areas and the 550D and the rebel series just can't do what a 6D/5D Mk.II/1D Mk.IV/1D X can do with low light...it just is a whole different level...not saying you need one of those bodies just something to keep in mind. Also consider buying only EF glass if you plan on upgrading to a full frame body as if your serious about photography you'll end up getting one eventually and be excited to mount all your lenses on your new camera.
Click to expand...


I think you misunderstood my post.
I love both the 28 and 50 primes.
But neither are ideal for walking around town with because
1) I'd have to change lenses during my walking around (defeats the point of walk-around lens).
2) 50 is not enough, even on a crop, to zoom in up close on certain things one might see while walking around.

Both primes are perfect for when I have my whole bag, tripod, etc. And don't mind setting up shop, swapping lenses, etc. Or at home.
But when I'm wandering around old town, or in a park, or at the zoo, or whathaveyou, I typically don't wanna carry bag and tripod. Nor do I wanna swap lenses. I wanna be able to zoom in to that bird on the tree (50mm is not enough), or that seagull on a rock outcropping, or alternatively, zoom out wide enough to take in, say, a view of the sunset from that restaurant patio I'm sitting at, etc.
That's what I mean by "walk around lens".

(Thanks for your input though. Appreciated).
 
VirtualRain

VirtualRain

macrumors 603
Aug 1, 2008
6,304
118
Vancouver, BC
If you don't want to compromise on the wide end then the 15-85 is a top notch EFS lens with good quality, reasonable price and a good focal length range.

The 24-105L offers great image quality and build for a reasonable price but you give up the wide end. However, as someone mentioned you could compliment this nicely with the 10-22. I would never personally go this route as it would force too many lens changes for the type of shooting I do.

What I had on my crop was the 17-55 f2.8 and a 70-300 but I wasn't much of a street photographer... More travel photography, so the 17-55 was on my camera 95% of the time.
 
whoRichard

whoRichard

macrumors newbie
Nov 17, 2012
22
0
TheDrift- said:
Optimal price too! I'd go for the 25 105, pretty solid alrounder which seems to be what your after.. for range maybe look at the 55-250, great lens for the money.

If money is no object then the 24 70 2.8 v2 as suggested above and the 70-200 2.8 isii is a tough combination to beat..tho i suspect that would be around 4k in lenses :eek:
Click to expand...

Then again this lens is only for those who have the big bucks $$$ or this is a hobby that you're sure of.... Realistically the 24-70 and a 70-200 is ALL you need maybe with the exception of a fisheye/true wide angle but c'mon you gotta pay to play haha...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom