Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 11, 2005, 7:15 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Hello,
I am Poolak and l live in Yokohama, Japan.

Recently, I have switched from my old EOS-55 (film) to EOS-20D (I bought the body of 20D alone). With my EOS_55, I have Canon EF17-40, EF28-105 and EF100-300 lenses.
I am going to keep the 17-40 (wonderful on my EOS_55) with my 20D.

But with the crop factor (1.6), it becomes around 28-64mm.
I need some recommendation (on a Canon walk-around lens (28-105 was with my EOS_55) that is around USD 500 (20D was costly enough and I am an amateur).

I am thinking of 28-135-IS but getting sweet & sour review of it in different forums. I do have a plan to go for a 50mm prime (may be later).

Appreciate your kind help in selection.

Best regards,

Poolak
:?:
psyp3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 11, 2005, 7:41 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

i have the 28-135 and it stays attached to my 20d about 90-95 percent of the time.. i find it to be a fantastic walk-around lens as long as you don't need to go too wide.. but since you already own the 17-40, i think this will be a perfect addition to your lens collection.. its plenty sharp and contrasty with good bokeh and the build quality is excellent for a consumer line lens..

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2005, 2:00 AM   #3
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

If you wan't a wide angle to mid-telephoto zoom then the EF-S 17-85mm (*1.6 = 27-135) is the obvious choice.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...79&forum_id=37

However you aready have some good lenses that cover that range and many people use the 17-40 (*1.6 = 27-64) as a walk around. Others love the 28-135 (*1.6 = 45-216).
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2005, 7:09 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Since I am hearing some different comments on 28-135 and most people are recommending EF70-200 F4L (the price is double than the 28-135), I am confused.

1) the price is high for 70-200mm
2) it is heavier than 28-135
3) I miss 40 to 70 (i.e., 64 to 112 in DSLR) with 17-40 and 70-200.

Is it ok to keep 17-40 as a walk-around lens?

Any guideline/suggestion on 28-135 versus 70-200?

Cheers,

Poolak

psyp3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 7:24 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Setiprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 484
Default

Hards80 - Is absolutely correct. I use the 28/135 for 85% of my work. I put one on my wife's 300D also. This lens has made a lot of money for me. Thinking of buying another just for 'backup'.

www.pbase.com/jpferguson
Setiprime is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 11:08 AM   #6
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Poolak,

if you still have any doubts about the quality or the abilities of the 28-135 after checking out setiprimes website.. check out this website of a rather famous photographer often seen gracing the pages of many of our popular magazines. most of his work is done with the 28-135 IS, i would say that it is serving him well.

http://www.montezucker.com/index.html

best regards, dustin
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 10:48 PM   #7
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4
Default

Hi Dustin,

Thanks for your help.


I am having this confusion about lens from the day I bought the 20D. As long as I was using my EOS-55, with my 28-105 (kind of standard on my EOS-55), 100-300 and 17-40, I was content.


I am planning to keep 17-40 (28-64) as my walk-around lens for my 20D, but then come the confusion about the zoom.


I am a pure amateur on photography and I generally get the suggestions from people like you and then finally balance with my pocket.


Regarding, 28-135, I am getting mixed feedback, some (like you and Setprime) are praising it and here comes the comments from other camp (that I got from other forums):


Comment – 1: "28-135, I've used to have one, can't complain about its sharpness or resolution on panX(iso 50 monochrome film), but its built quality is average, it will suffer from zoom creep after it's been well used, and be careful when you have it zoom out to 135mm, a sharp jolt on the front cell now will dislodge the ring usm af mechanism(happen to me twice). do a search on the performance of the 28-135 on digital bodies, it is said that the 28-135 does not resolve/soft pixs that well..."



Comment – 2: "I am one that really dislikes the 28-135. Why? Cause I have seen it, used it, tested it, have friends that have it. The list goes on. Two bad things with it. Soft edges and corners and vignetting especially at longer focal lengths. Its a slow lens too at longer focal lengths and using it wide open is where problems start happening. IS is better suited for longer more telephoto lenses.

Since you have the 17-40 there is a lot of overlap with the 17-40 amd 24-85. So much that I really dont think you need it. I think the 70-200 is a great choice and as an added lens to covr the gap in the middle maybe a very inexpensive 50mm 1.8 or a little more for the 1.4 to hit the 50mm in the middle of the two lenses. The 50mm f1.8 is under $80."

Nevertheless, all are suggesting to go for 70-200 f4L, that is heavier and double the price of 28-135.

Completely perplexed.:?

Best regards,

Poolak
psyp3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2005, 11:28 PM   #8
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

the 70-200 f4.0 is a great lens.. not going to argue that, but its awfully heavy as a walkabout lens.. you will also find some bad reviews of this lens too.. the thing is, ppl have different opinions and different backgrounds.. so it makes it tough to weed out hte good advice from the bad.. plus just like cars, there are lemons.. there are bad copies of all lenses out there and its more likely that someone will review a lemon than something that does as promised.. here, take a look at this pic.. it was shot wide open at 95mm.. it has not been edited one bit besides a resize.. no unsharp mask, levels, nothing.. straight out of my 20d and 28-135 IS..

btw- for the final pic, i did crop off some extra room at top.. warmed it up slightly and ran a mild unsharp mask over it.. it is left as is for demonstation only
Attached Images
 
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:45 AM.