Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Canon Lenses (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses-61/)
-   -   which lens (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/canon-lenses/88364-lens.html)

cezar Apr 30, 2006 10:49 AM

hello
i bought my first dslr camera a few weeks ago.i bought a canon 350d with 18-55 ef-s lens.But i would also like to buy a lens with larger focal lenght.
I dont have a huge budget so i was looking at these two
Canon EF 28-135mm f/ 3.5-5.6 IS USM
and
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
most of the time i shoot in day light and rarely in low light conditions so f2.8 and lower is too much for my needs.if anyone has experience with the above lenses please answer.Some samples would be nice.I prefer the first one because my crop factor is 1.6 so it would be 44-216 and the other one 44-320.and i think it is hard to shot at 320mm with f5.6(am i right??).Does IS helps to shot animals,sports ...
thank you

i am from croatia so if i made any mistakes excuse me please

wsandman1 Apr 30, 2006 11:08 AM

I used to own both. I still have the 28 - 135 IS. If I only shot during day lightunder mostly sunny conditions, I'd probably choose the 28 - 200. The IS won't do anything for sports, it would help during indoor posed photos. The 28 - 135 IS is a bit sharper.

JohnG May 1, 2006 8:05 AM

Cezar,

There is another thread running right now discussing the 28-135. This is a great lens. I have one, and it's still my walkaround lens. IS is usefull for low light shots (which could include wildlife portraits) but completely useless for action shots - either sports or moving animals. But, you also have to realize, the 28-135 is a mid-range zoom. It's not wide enough for a lot of landscape work and it really isn't very long - too short for many outdoor sports (and with 5.6 aperture too slow for any indoor sports). So, as a general purpose walkaround lens I think it's great. For a wildlife or sports lens it's not so great. But, you gotta start somewhere and I think this is a great place to start.

I've never had the 28-200, but I've never really heard it recommended either whereas the 28-135 has a pretty strong following. Of the two, I would suggest the 28-135 - just realize it wasn't meant to be a sports / wildlife lens.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:36 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2