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

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 12, 2006, 9:36 PM   #11
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143


Yes, I used that lens for over a year as my "one and only" and I was very pleased with it. It is quite compact and not overly weighty when on the 20D. I can carry it in my camera bag/purse very easily and it has traveled all over the world with me.

There is no noise or vibration from the IS unit and it has really been a great lens for me in every way. Here is another no flash/existing light shot with that lens. Please keep in mind that I purposefully focused on the dramatic mural background to set the scene, and that I was nearly at the max aperture for this shot. Therefore the DOF was shallow.

Attached Images
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 12, 2006, 9:53 PM   #12
jazzin junkshun's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 62

i, too, have a 20d and this walk-around lens. IS worksas it shouldand the USM provides just that (ultrasonic motor). depending on what you shoot, this may be the only lens needed for a while. i believe it has macro capabilities also. have fun. there's also canon 70-300mm IS USM. check out on line auctions for prices. you may be able to afford both, give or take a few bucks. i also have the 70-300mm IS USM. the IS function may add a lil weight, but worth it.
jazzin junkshun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 3:08 AM   #13
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

Consider 17-85 * 1.6 = 27-136.

Compare that to 28-135.

Look similar? That's because on a full-frame camera the most useful focal length range is 28mm wide angle to around 100mm short telephoto.

The 28-135 was designed for 35mm film cameras to cover that highly useful range as a good "walkaround" lens. The equivalent on a crop camera is the 17-85.

Now if you were the kind of person who used to use a 45mm (normal) - 200mm (medium telephoto) as your walkaround lens on your film camera then by all means use the 28-135 as a good choice on a 1.6 crop camera.

BUT - for me, and for most people, an Effective Focal Length of 45mm is not wide enough.

Canon does make a FF sensor at the moment - and can be found in the 5D ($3000) and the 1DsMkII ($8000). The sensors in those cameras are so good that they push the resolution limits of the very best Canon professional lenses. In general the lenses that you would need with those cameras are designated "L" and generally start from around $1500 per lens.

It is a vast mistake to choose (the wrong) consumer-grade lens now in the hope that it might be useful to you if you ever upgrade to a professional grade camera in future. You will at that point need to upgrade your consumer-grade lenses too.

Therefore I would councel you strongly NOT to choose as a walkaround lens anything that starts at greater than an actual focal length of 18mm (EFL 28mm).

IMO the 28-135 is the wrong lens for you.

If you are determined to avoid EF-S lenses (and remember some fools were predicting that the 20D's successor would be FF, which was spectacularly wrong, they didn't even increase the resolution) I would suggest the 17-40L f4, which is the cheapest L lens Canon make and gives you an EFL of 27-64mm, which isn't too bad for a walkaround, but you don't get IS and you don't get the extra range.

Consider why you might want a FF camera - the ONLY reason is that you need more than 8Mp. The only reason for that is that you want to do substantial cropping or need to print BIG pictures with high resolution from up close. The 30D is very capable at anything up to A3 / 12x18. Which is a pretty big print - are you sure you need to go bigger?

You want one good lens?

Choose one of these :
1. EF-S 17-85
2. EF 17-40 L.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 5:46 AM   #14
Senior Member
mtclimber's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143


I surely agree that the 17-40L is tops.

mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 13, 2006, 12:31 PM   #15
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529

I'll also add that the 28-135 is a great lens - it's still my walkaround lens even though I have a 17-40L. Optically the 28-135 and 17-85 are pretty much the same. The 17-85 has better IS but the 28-135 will work on any Canon DSLR where as the 17-85 will only work on the 1.6x crop models (i.e. not the 5d or the 1 series). That last aspect is a deal breaker for me personally. Even if I were buying again, I would not choose the 17-85 because of that limitation. But that's me - you might not care.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 1:49 PM   #16
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8

Thank you, everyone, for your suggestions!!!!

Thank you again for the great pix!
(looks like Japanese ukiyoe...)
Good to know you feel comfy with that lens &body as mobility is one of my main concerns in choosing my lens.

No, I couldn'ttrade my boozeeven for an L lens... :-)

Jazzin, JohnG,
Thanks for your comment! I'm glad to know this lens is being used for a walk-around, general purpose lens!

Thank you again for your suggestions!
I never thought about thisEFLof 45mm being not wide enough;
that's something I should sit down and think over another night before wipping out my credit card...
I was kept riveted when you mentioned about choosing the right lens now for my future camera. You made a totally sense and I really appreciate your suggestions, but given that I'm not a professional photographer nor will I ever be buying one of the pro-series heavy cameras in the future, I guess I'm stuck with mid-grade lens especially with my limited budget for my immediate shooting needs with good zooming capability. But I will definitely try your suggested lenses at my nearby camera shop.

Again, thanks a lot for your great suggestions, everyone!!
newest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 7:04 PM   #17
Junior Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8

By the way, I totally forgot aboutbuying a CF memory card...!

DoesCF's speed diffrence really matter??

I'm just looking at SanDisk's products with different speeds, butis there a noticeablespeed difference in real lifeamong thesethree? Unlessa low-speed CFcreates a huge delay between shots, I'd like to gowith thecheapest one...
What CF (brand/size/speed) do you use??

No name (no speed info):

Ultra II (9MB/sec):

Extreme III (20MB/sec):

...Also, what do you think about Micro Drives...?
Are they better than CFs?
newest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 7:45 PM   #18
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 11

Microdrives are slower than CF cards. The faster cards are faster but by how much is beyond me.

I am looking at the 30D and will buy from John at Butterfly photo who has not done me wrong. Buy what you want and he may try to sell you stuff but when you say no he takes that as a final. The cameras come the way they should , no delay and not funny business, american warranty etc.

I am not sure I would buy the lens there, would check their prices first. I do buy an extra battery for all my cameras and if he has a brand name then buy from him.

Hope this helps.

sandie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2006, 7:54 PM   #19
Senior Member
tmoreau's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477

Microdrives give you more space for the same money, but have lots of tiny moving parts which MAY (or may not!) decrease thier reliability.

Under calm normal daily shooting conditions CF card speed does not matter. When transfering lots of pics to you PC, or when shooting rather quickly, it matters. How much depends on your patience. With my minolta 5d I can get just three frames on continuous drive with a slow card, but over 20 until it slows (but does not stop) with an ultraII or better.

I have very strong feelings about memory cards, I own a cheap no-name, an UltraII, and a ExtremeIII ranging from 512mb to 2gb. I feel very strongly that everyone with a DSLR should get at least a 40-80x lexar or sandisk card (UltraII-ExtremeIII) versus a slow and/or no-name card. The price difference really isnt much. I have not expierienced better performance from the extremeIII card versus the ultraII, but the III is supposed to be better protected against vibration and extreme environmental conditions. The cheap card promised high speed, but does not deliver. Ireputable dealers have been found faking cards, too.

Amazon has the ultraII 2gb for $90 with free shipping
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 17, 2006, 2:58 AM   #20
Super Moderator
peripatetic's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599

A couple of final points.

If you think that the 28-135 really will be the best focal length range for your walkaround lens, then I'd strongly recommend you get the 18-55 kit lens too. It's a much maligned lens, but it's pretty sharp when stopped down to f8 or f11 and would give you a cheap & viable wide-angle option for when you need to go wider than 45mm EFL.

As to CF cards - I think the mid-range ones e.g. Ultra II are fast enough to keep up with the write-speed of the 20D/30D. You're fairly unlikely to hit the end of the buffer on the 30D anyway.

When shooting RAW I have found that the 2Gb card is sometimes not enough for a full day's shooting, so go for 2x2Gb or a 4Gb card. I don't know anyone who's ever had a problem with microdrives, but I don't have one myself. An 8Gb microdrive sure is tempting. :-) It would give you nearly 1000 RAW shots on one card!!
peripatetic 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 9:55 PM.