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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 30, 2006, 9:49 AM   #1
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2

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
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
cezar is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 30, 2006, 10:08 AM   #2
Senior Member
wsandman1's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318

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.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 7:05 AM   #3
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529


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.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote

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 7:48 AM.