Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:11 PM   #1
Puckman1
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
My next lens...advice

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).
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 01:41 PM   #2
samcraig
macrumors G5
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman1 View Post
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 is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 02:42 PM   #3
kevinfulton.ca
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman1 View Post
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!
__________________
13" White Macbook, 4 GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" external monitor, 320 GB Firewire scratch disc, 2 TB partitioned expansion/backup HD; iPad 2, 64 GB, 3G; iPhone 4S, 16 GB.
kevinfulton.ca is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:13 PM   #4
Puckman1
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
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.
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:24 PM   #5
ocabj
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman1 View Post
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.
ocabj is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:52 PM   #6
mono1980
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 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.
mono1980 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 03:55 PM   #7
Puckman1
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by mono1980 View Post
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?
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 04:20 PM   #8
kevinfulton.ca
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman1 View Post
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/
__________________
13" White Macbook, 4 GB RAM, 500GB HD, 22" external monitor, 320 GB Firewire scratch disc, 2 TB partitioned expansion/backup HD; iPad 2, 64 GB, 3G; iPhone 4S, 16 GB.
kevinfulton.ca is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 04:46 PM   #9
Puckman1
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
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!
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 3, 2013, 09:49 PM   #10
Policar
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
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.
Policar is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 07:26 AM   #11
Rowbear
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Gatineau, PQ, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevinfulton.ca View Post
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.
__________________
Robert
www.robertgravel.ca

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
Rowbear is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 08:19 AM   #12
OreoCookie
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Fukuoka, 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.
__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
OreoCookie is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 11:32 AM   #13
Bear
macrumors G3
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sol III - Terra
Quote:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
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.
__________________
-----Bear
Bear is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 02:02 PM   #14
mono1980
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lansing, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Puckman1 View Post
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.
mono1980 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 03:45 PM   #15
Puckman1
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Thanks guys. I just caught up on this thread. I appreciate all the feedback and suggestions. I'll keep researching...
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 8, 2013, 09:13 PM   #16
MCAsan
macrumors 68030
 
MCAsan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: 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.
__________________
Retina MBP 11,3 2.6GHz | 16GB | 1TB
Thunderbolt Display
iPhone 5s | Silver | 64GB | Unlocked
iPad Air | Silver | 128GB | WiFi only
MCAsan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 06:10 AM   #17
ijohn.8.80
macrumors 65816
 
ijohn.8.80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Adelaide, Oztwaylya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCAsan View Post
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
__________________
YouTube is not the resurrection of Dada
ijohn.8.80 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 06:13 AM   #18
whoRichard
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
24-70 L version 2 seems like an optimal lens for walking around
whoRichard is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 06:59 AM   #19
TheDrift-
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoRichard View Post
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
__________________
www.shaunw.com
TheDrift- is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:22 AM   #20
lilChrissy
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Trade the kit lens and the 28mm for the 15-85. Great walk around, IQ, doesn't weigh like L glass.
lilChrissy is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 10:45 AM   #21
NZed
macrumors 65816
 
NZed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: 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
__________________
Marty: Wait a minute, Doc. Are you telling me that you built a time machine, out of a DeLorean?
NZed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 04:34 PM   #22
nateo200
macrumors 68030
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rendering......
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 /1.8 USM because it is insane sharp but I wish I had grabbed the 100mm which is just as sharp (EF 100mm /2.0 USM) as I will be shooting both crop and full frame. My choice for my next lens will be either the 135mm /2L, 135mm /2.8 with soft focus, 200mm /2.8L, or one of the wonderful 70-200mm's. You could easily have a full set up with a 24-70 /4 and 70-200 /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 /2.8 range to be a must or better yet the even faster aperture primes like the 135mm /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.
__________________
-15" rMBP 2.4/8/256/650M, FCP X, AE CS5.5, PS CS6
-USB3 180GB SSD, Intensity Shuttle Thunderbolt
-iPhone 6 in Space Grey 128GB
-Canon 550D, GoPro3 Black
nateo200 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 06:15 PM   #23
Puckman1
Thread Starter
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
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 /1.8 USM because it is insane sharp but I wish I had grabbed the 100mm which is just as sharp (EF 100mm /2.0 USM) as I will be shooting both crop and full frame. My choice for my next lens will be either the 135mm /2L, 135mm /2.8 with soft focus, 200mm /2.8L, or one of the wonderful 70-200mm's. You could easily have a full set up with a 24-70 /4 and 70-200 /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 /2.8 range to be a must or better yet the even faster aperture primes like the 135mm /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).
Puckman1 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 9, 2013, 07:36 PM   #24
VirtualRain
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 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.
__________________
tools: nMP for photography, rMBP for working, iPad for surfing, iPhone for communicating, Mac Mini for entertaining
Canon tools: 5D Mark III 24-105L/70-300L/35L/50L/85L for capturing
VirtualRain is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 10, 2013, 05:57 AM   #25
whoRichard
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDrift- View Post
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...
whoRichard is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Photography

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Got a new Canon 70D with 18.135mm kit lens. Is a 35mm 14 L lens a worthy second lens? KimJonNumberUn Digital Photography 36 Mar 3, 2014 12:08 PM
Lens advice (My next lens) Puckman Digital Photography 35 Sep 10, 2013 07:16 PM
GH3 lens advice? Dornblaser Digital Video 0 Dec 13, 2012 06:11 PM
Lens selection advice 1.4 or 1.2? IKBest Digital Video 5 Dec 10, 2012 08:59 AM
Need lens advice...asap! rayjay86 Digital Photography 9 Aug 5, 2012 09:58 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC