Help with lens choice - check my logic

[perfectpixel]

If you had a 24-70F/2.8L lens and a 70-200F/4L lens in you bag, would there be any need for a 28-135F/3.5-5.6 IS lens?
I am getting a 10D and need to decide on a lens.
The 28-135F/3.5-5.6 IS has gotten great reviews and is a bargain at $400.
I have also read great things about the 24-70F/2.8L. But it runs a cool 3X$ at $1350.
I can see eventually getting the more expensive L lenses mentioned above, so doesn't it make sense to skip the 28-135F/3.5-5.6 lens and consider the $400 *saved* a rebate on the 24-70F/2.8L?
Of course the problem is that it would strech the bank account a little bit to cough up for the 10D as well as the 24-70F/2.8L, but I'd hate to get the 28-135F/3.5-5.6 lens and have it just sit in the camera case in a year or so.
What do you guys think? Does this logic make any sense? Does the 28-135F/3.5-5.6 IS have any utility given the 24-70 and 70-200 L lenses?
thanks

[MediaMagic]

Well, I'd have to say get the best glass you can get right off the bat if you are planning to get the L glass anyway. There is a big difference in price, but the 24-70L does have a considerable range, superior optics, wider aperature for low light in all focal lengths.

I'm certainly not saying NOT to get the 28-135IS, but if you are going to purchase the 24-70L and 70-200L anyway, you'd probably be happier with the 24-70L from the beginning.

I guess it would really depend on with what capital outlay you are comfortable. I have a 24-70L and a 100-400L on the way because my old set of lenses just aren't doing it for me on the 10D so I've decided that since I've spent top dollar for a top camera, I may as well get the best speakers money can buy and for the 10D, that's the L lenses (that was a great analogy whoever came up with that).

I'm sure you'll get more informed responses than this one, but as a new 10D owner myself, I can understand where you are coming from.

David

[Aylwin]

If you had the L lenses in your bag you probably wouldn't touch the non-L one. :) Certainly, if you can afford the L lens right from the beginning then go ahead. It'll likely stay in the bag permanently.

Myself though, I decided to start with 28-135 IS. It was hard enough making the decision to go for the 10D and I didn't want to give myself anymore headaches deciding on the lens.

It turns out, the 28-135 IS may sit in the bag for quite a long time still. There are other L lenses I'm eyeing for below and above this range. The 28-135 IS may eventually get replaced someday but when that time comes I'm sure it would've paid for itself by then.

My logic is: by starting with the cheaper 28-135 IS, I'm able to add more lenses sooner (like a decent prime, for example, and then later an L). Had I started with an L, it would've taken me more time to "save up" (probably more pyschologically than monetarily) for the next lens purchase.

Anyway, I'm hardly a good photographer so my needs are probably different. Just my 2 cents...

[Roger_Cavanagh]

If you can afford the L glass now, buy it and save the 400 bucks on the 28-135 LIS. I have the 24-70L and the 70-200LIS. I cannot imagine using the 28-135 as an option. I do have a 135/2 prime that I use and would like to get another prime or two in this range, but buying the 28-135 zoom would be money down the drain.

Some people would say the 28-135 would make a good walk-around lens, but if I didn't want to carry both L zooms, I would just choose one or take the 24-70 and 135.

Picture quality is so much better with L glass (especially zooms) that you would notice the difference.

Regards,

[defordphoto]

I purchased the 28-135 as my first Canon lens (I had some non-Canon lenses from my old film cameras) and don't regret it. But, if you're getting the 24-70 and 70-200 L-glass, the 28-135 becomes redundant and $400-plus dollars you could invest better in something else longer or a super-wide.

The reason my 28-135 still gets use is that I have not yet purchased L-glass to take its place yet. I also have a 100-400L and just purchased the 70-200L f/2.8.

The next L-glass for me to get now would be the 24-70 or equivelant and then the 28-135 would move to my wife's bag on her D60.

Once the L-bug bites you it's a permanent disease. Hide your credit cards! ;)

In the meantime, the 28-135 is extremely useful in my bag and will remain so until my Discover card cools down a little...

It's an awesome everyday lens, but in your scenario a waste of money.

[hmhm]

Keep in mind that the 24-70L is a large beastie, both in physical size and weight. You may want to check one out before buying, and ensure that it isn't too cumbersome for your purposes. The 28-135 is far more practical for casual "walking around" purposes.

There's a tendency to oversimplify into "L zooms best, always use best", but these lenses are designed for a particular purpose, and if that isn't exactly what your purpose is, then they may not be the best for your job. For instance, the 24-70 wasn't designed for "carry around all day taking snaps of your kids at a big amusement park".

Of course the basic problem with both of these lenses is that they're not wide enough on a 1.6x sensor camera. Depending on the type of shooting you do, the 17-40 may be a better "leave it on most of the time lens" on a 10D/300D/D60.
-harry

[Longwatcher]

Same thing I said in another post.
28-135 IS is a good lens to stay on camera. It is also lighter making it easier to travel with. The "L"s are better image quality and better aperture, but the 28-135 IS is more flexable for a single lens while still having good quality.

On the flip side, If you know you will be getting "L" glass anyway, you can skip it and go straight to "L" 8)

[MarkH]

I have the 28-135 IS for normal use. I also have the 50mm f1.8 for wide aperture and sharp portrait use. I am happy enough with the 28-135 so that I am not currently contemplating the 24-70 unless I suddenly come into some money.

What I will be saving for though is the 70-200 f2.8 IS lens. I do have a 75-300 III that I can use when I want longer focal lengths, but it is not as sharp as the 28-135 and has no IS and only the cheaper version on USM.

I also want to get the 17-40L for the wider angle stuff.

Once I have these zooms:
17-40L
28-135 IS
70-200 f2.8 IS

I will reevaluate whether I am still happy with the 28-135, and I will have a much better Idea about what focal lenths I am willing to spend my money on.

But if you're sure that you want to get the 24-70 then I would suggest that you buy it straight away and skip the 28-135.

[GPR1]

At this point, I don't own either of the lenses you're debating, but I hope to own either of them. The L lens is huge; I've put it on the 10D in the store.

My logic says the 28-135 lens is not a bad investment. You get IS, which allows you to shoot at comparable shutter speeds to the faster L lens. It's lighter. If you're able to afford the L glass in a year, you might keep the 28-135 for a backup, or for situations where lighter is better. If instead you trade it in, you might get $200, which means you only spent $200 for the use of a good lens for a year.

If you can buy the L now without trouble and don't mind the weight, then by all means buy it. Otherwise, I don't think the 28-135 is a bad compromise.

[Andy_T]

Hi,

your logic not to get the 28-135 in the first place has one minor flaw ...


... the saved 400 bucks won't get you very far, L-lens-wise :)

Regards,
Andy

[perfectpixel]

Andythaler wrote:
Hi,

your logic not to get the 28-135 in the first place has one minor flaw ...


... the saved 400 bucks won't get you very far, L-lens-wise :)

Regards,
Andy

I'm used to being flawed :) by 400 off 1300 is almost 30%. Now who among us can pass up a 30% sale?

The size/weight issue may be the deciding factor though

[MediaMagic]

After reading some of the other posts, I'd have to agree it would depend on the purpose. For me, I wouldn't lug around the 10D all day at an amusement park unless my purpose in going was to take photos. If I were just having an outing with the family, I'd take my P&S olympus C-700. I wouldn't risk bumping the SLR around on rides with or without L glass attached. I certainly wouldn't risk leaving it in someone else's care while I rode the Mind Bender. With a little P&S camera, you can drop it into a padded fanny pack and enjoy the day. With the SLR you are going to be fiddling with/protecting the camera all day rather than enjoying your family outing.

So I'd still have to say, get the best glass you can afford. If you want to take photos, have the best tools available, if you are just goofing off, take a different camera altogether.

David

[Andy_T]

Actually, you'd take your 100-400 L lens with you to the amusement park so you can capture the horror on your grandchildren's faces while they are riding the mind bender :)

Regards,
Andy

[pwagner]

>>> I'm used to being flawed by 400 off 1300 is almost 30%. Now who among us can pass up a 30% sale?

[MediaMagic]

Andythaler wrote:
Actually, you'd take your 100-400 L lens with you to the amusement park so you can capture the horror on your grandchildren's faces while they are riding the mind bender :)

Regards,
Andy

LOL, I just saw this. You are probably correct! I'm not yet quite old enough to have grandkids, but I can certainly envision myself doing exactly that. :-)