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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 17, 2007, 11:26 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Sold on the range of this lens, especially as a general walkaround lens. The "always on the camera" lens. The range seems absolutely ideal for a walkaround and step up from the kit lens.

Seems reviews rate this lens very high for outdoor use but warn about indoor or low light shooting. Already delivered and scheduled today for "father's day" gift. Just concerned after some negative reviews about "indoor" and "low light."

I'll sometimes have the external flash on. Sometimes, but that's not always convenient. In low light, I'll sometimes have my prime lenses on, which, other than range, seem most ideal for indoor, low light settings without flash. Of course, only disadvantage is what-you-see-is-what-you-get with primes. No zoom.

What I'm hoping for is a more versatile, low light lens with SOME zooming range which the primes obviously don't have.

Will I regret this lens for indoor efforts? Will it REQUIRE flash indoors? Bump in ISO indoors?


leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 11, 2007, 6:07 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 36
Default

I just bought this lens also. My reason is for to keep it on my camera all the time. I have taken about 500 pictureswith it.Ijust playin to see what it can do and stuff. I really like the picture quality compaired to the kit lens. I think this lens is just right for my type of photography. I rarely use a wide angle but if i do i still have the kit lens i can use. I think this is an excellent choice for a main lens. I like the one i have.
scotiez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2007, 6:34 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

scotiez,
wish you the best with this lens.

I got the lens and shot with it for a week or so. got some INCREDIBLE outdoor shots and LOVED the zoom range, especially as compared to the kit lens.

Didn't have the same image quality top to bottom as my 85mm f/1.8 which I had used in similar indoor and outdoor settings. Returned the 28-135mm and biting the bullet for my first "L" glass. Just stuck in a debate, and, unfortunately for my camera to go off for a warranty repair. I'll get either the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm f/4.0-5.6, but again, my needs are low light more than focal length.

Those are for my particular needs, at least at the moment. I will agree, the 28-135mm is a perfect walkaround and I'd HIGHLY recommend ANYONE save the $100 and get body only plus the 28-135mm. (Better, I think that may be a kit now.) Range is just much more versatile unless you need that wide angle of the 17-55mm kit.

Best of luck with it. I wish I had gone that route to start, just not currently finding it adequate for my low light, indoor shooting.


leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 9:27 AM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

leeraff wrote:
Quote:
... Returned the 28-135mm and biting the bullet for my first "L" glass. Just stuck in a debate, and, unfortunately for my camera to go off for a warranty repair. I'll get either the 24-70mm f/2.8 or the 24-105mm f/4.0-5.6, but again, my needs are low light more than focal length.
Well unless you're going for a full-frame in the near future, IMHO going for the L glass is a poor compromise...

-> If you're really allergic to 3rd party lenses then also the Canon EF-s 17-55 f/2.8 can exceed the L here in image quality especially if shooting @ f/2.8 is your goal.
Actually even on a full-frame specifically the 24-70 f/2.8 is a poor compromise at wide aperture (especially in the corner areas) as opposed to the 'digital only' - Check their MTF's @ f/2.8: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html


@ f/2.8
24mm 24-70L 17-55
Center 1841.5 2074
Border 1653 1757.5
Extreme N/A 1680

The results are consistent across all focal lenghts - I have just not included them since they don't line up one to one except at 24mm, but the trend is pretty clear

NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 12, 2007, 3:58 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

NHL,
Appreciate the reply. Interesting. For fear of turning this into a "deja vu" post, let's say I'm not "allergic to 3rd party lenses" and the budget has opened up substantially since some of our earlier conversations. If we were to start completely over with open budget and still the need for fast, low light and speedy focus... longer range than 55mm and no real need for width of 17mm.... What then??? (Previous answers WERE limited to budget...)

QUESTIONS:
-The 28-70mm reviewer used a 350d didn't he? Many, many rave about the 28-70mm on 20d's, 30d's and even Rebels. What am I missing? CAn you put those concerns into laymen's/newbie terms? Are the issues you mention that pronounced or just more theoretical concerns, especially against another lens???

--It's the range of the 17-55m that doesn't work for me. Never find myself anywhere near the 17mm and the 55mm keeps me wanting to get up in the toddlers faces. (You introduced me to the concept of even a 200mm for indoor which I would have never otherwise considered and love many of the pbase kids/toddlers/portrait pics I've seen with that lens.) That 28-135mm DID hit a sweet spot with range. Just definitely felt I needed flash and still felt there were too many "soft" images. I still wonder if the 70-200mm wouldn't be my best overall bet, especially as even 50mm is sometimes too wide and 85mm a little too far. 70mm may hit perfect and 200mm opens up a world of possibilities indoor and out. Certainly a specific function and back in the bag. Not a walkaround. With range input, any other ideas???

--Concern of taking intermediate step in purchase and still later going to the "L" lenses mentioned down the road. I have read some great reviews on suggested 3rd party lenses only to find some reviewers upgraded from those and rave about their new "L" glass even more (28-70mm).

--Finally, if I'm spoiled with primes, how much difference could one expect, all else equal, between "L" glass and a simple prime? I couldn't ask for more than what I get with my 85mm f/1.8. Just would like some zoom as I do have to backpedal to focus sometimes, or backwards army crawl into a wall, dresser, crib... ha ha

Believe me, I've seen plenty rave about 3rd party but can usually find some negatives, or, former owners who upgraded and now rave about new "L" lens such as 28-70mm. And, I see next to NO negative reviews on 28-70mm f/2.8 anywhere, regardless of camera body. I certainly don't have to tell you the rating on 70-200mm f/2.8.

Any last specific ideas with NO budget (well, reasonable budget) would be greatly appreciated and heavily researched, especially as Canon rebates will soon expire.


leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 2:48 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Nothing wrong with going with the 24-70 f/2.8 if that's the focal range you need... After all it's about what you need and use (not me or any other posters)!

All I'm trying to say is if you really need f/2.8 for low light then the 24-70 f/2.8 even an L is not going to as sharp as that of the non-L EF_s 17-55 f/2.8 @ wide open - Theses are not therotical curves given by Canon charts, but the measured MTF's from Photozone are actual tested results from real lenses:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
In fact you need to shoot the 24-70L @ f/5.6 to equals the sharpness and contrast of the 17-55 @ f/2.8 :idea:
-> IMO this is why the EF-s 17-55 is commanding such a high-price (just check the above charts)... and it comes not only as f/2.8 but IS as well!
... regarding the 28-135, I'm sure you remember theses too (Is your sample softer?):
http://forums.steves-digicams.com/fo...mp;forum_id=82

BTW - Why do you need the reach of a 70mm when you already have the 85mm with an even faster f/1.8 aperture?
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 7:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 172
Default

NHL,
Great questions. Appreciate the on-going dialog as it does help general knowledge and beat into the head more and more points.

17-55mm info is VERY compelling, eye opening. (Probably a heck of a walkaround) It's just not a great range for my current needs, wider than I need but not long enough.

IF WE WERE TO START COMPLETELY FROM SCRATCH and assume...
--Not an "L" snob. Barely ever held one.
--Not a blind Canon loyalist. Just intrigued by so many rave reviews.
--Totally open to 3rd party, especially those that prove better than mfg's offerings.
--Sort of open to EF-s lenses if the perfect one for me exists. (The 30d is my one and only baby for quite some time.)
--OPEN BUDGET (sort of)

What lenses would you point one to research with more reach than 55mm reach and great low light and fast focus capabilities?


NHL wrote:
Quote:
BTW - Why do you need the reach of a 70mm when you already have the 85mm with an even faster f/1.8 aperture?
LOVE the shots I get with it. My favorite if space is no issue. Only problem is range. Sometimes it's too close. Usually can't get both boys in same shot. Don't mind changing lenses but can't miss the once in a lifetime moment changing out lenses. Real desire, if I've not been clear, is to have a ZOOM with low light capabilities.


Really wanting to pull trigger.


leeraff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 13, 2007, 10:54 PM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

leeraff wrote:
Quote:
IF WE WERE TO START COMPLETELY FROM SCRATCH and assume...
--Not an "L" snob. Barely ever held one.
--Not a blind Canon loyalist. Just intrigued by so many rave reviews.
--Totally open to 3rd party, especially those that prove better than mfg's offerings.
--Sort of open to EF-s lenses if the perfect one for me exists. (The 30d is my one and only baby for quite some time.)
--OPEN BUDGET (sort of)

What lenses would you point one to research with more reach than 55mm reach and great low light and fast focus capabilities?
This sounds like the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 EX might be your ticket:
1. It's longer than 55mm
2. F/2.8 for low-light
3. HSM is the fast and silent AF with full-time manual overide (Sigma's ultrasonic)
4. The EX series are the Sigma's professional line (i.e. "EX" snob instead)
5. At almost 1/2 the weight of a 70-200 f/2.8 for a walk around!

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=213663

NHL 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 3:54 AM.