My next lens...advice

[Puckman1]

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).

[samcraig]

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.

Originally Posted by Puckman1

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).

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by Puckman1

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).

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!

[Puckman1]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

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!

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

Keep the comments coming.

[ocabj]

Originally Posted by Puckman1

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).

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.

[mono1980]

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.

[Puckman1]

Originally Posted by mono1980

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.

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

[kevinfulton.ca]

Originally Posted by Puckman1

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

Thought you might like this site. I visit it quite often when shopping for a new lens. Great reviews, comparisons, and recommendations that will satisfy the casual and uber-nerd equally. Enjoy!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

[Puckman1]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

Thought you might like this site. I visit it quite often when shopping for a new lens. Great reviews, comparisons, and recommendations that will satisfy the casual and uber-nerd equally. Enjoy!

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/

Someone else recommended me that earlier today, so I'm reading that now. Thanks though!

[Policar]

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.

[Rowbear]

Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca

I'd highly recommend saving a little extra and getting the 70-200mm f4 L.

+1

Great optics, constant f/4 through the zoom range, and great resale value.

[OreoCookie]

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.

[Bear]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

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.

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.

[mono1980]

Originally Posted by Puckman1

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

I replaced mine with the 24-70mm 2.8 L. But of course, it doesn't give you quite the range, and comparatively it's very pricey.

[Puckman1]

Thanks guys. I just caught up on this thread. I appreciate all the feedback and suggestions. I'll keep researching...

[MCAsan]

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]

Originally Posted by MCAsan

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.

"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/41..._canon?start=2

[whoRichard]

24-70 L version 2 seems like an optimal lens for walking around

[TheDrift-]

Originally Posted by whoRichard

24-70 L version 2 seems like an optimal lens for walking around

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

[lilChrissy]

Trade the kit lens and the 28mm for the 15-85. Great walk around, IQ, doesn't weigh like L glass.

[NZed]

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]

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[I]/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.

[Puckman1]

Originally Posted by nateo200

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[I]/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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TheDrift-

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

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...