Short zoom lenses

[wintoid]

I wonder if anyone has any guidance to offer relating to short zoom lenses. Coming from the world of the G1, I find my 300D somewhat bulky, and so far have pretty much kept the EF 50mm 1.4 lens on it all the time, which is nice and compact.

Having a small daughter as I do, I'm finding that I sometimes miss shots because I can only control the framing by moving/rotating the camera closer/further/up/down/left/right. A zoom would really help in this respect, but I don't want to carry around a monstrosity.

So, a few questions. Does going for a short lens necessarily mean a sacrifice in quality?

Ideally I'd like a zoom that is not much bigger physically than my 50mm lens, and has a range from about 50mm (or less) to about 200mm (or more). The size of the lens is more important than the range of the zoom. Does anyone have any recommendations for a lens meeting this description, or is there just no such thing?

Apologies if this is a common question, but I couldn't find anything in search that was relating to the length of the lens. Many thanks in advance.

[Tapeman]

28-200mm lenses are available from a few manufatures, some are pretty small (although larger than your 50mm). Most are pretty soft.

I think you will get lots of recommendations for the Canon 28-135IS.

[CyberDyneSystems]

I notice that you are not using the Kit lens often, if at all (the 18-55mm)

Did you not get it?,. or is this because you prefer the 50mm?

I ask because, if you have shunned the 18-55mm because you feel the 50mm yeilds better images,. than you have a problem....

YOU'D be RIGHT

And that brands you as an observent individual who will not be satisfied with the results of a 28-200mm zoom. :wink:

Your weight and bulk contraints though pose a serious problem.

200mm HAS to be heavy to be good. (well heavy when compared to a 50mm)

[wintoid]

Thank you for your input.

I did use the kit lens once to take a wide angle shot of my 6-month daughter Katy in the bath, when the 50mm just would not do, and it's OK I guess. There's a marked difference though, as you say. So I use it only if I need it, and generally I'm taking infoor portraits so the 50mm fits the bill just fine.

The problem is that Katy is getting more mobile, and soon she won't just look at me whilst I compose the picture. I don't think I have much use for the wider angles, but I'm anticipating wanting to get a shot from further away.

I said 200mm but to be honest I have no real concept of how that will be (I really am a beginner). I guess it's possible that 28-135 would be OK. Maybe I should go try one in a shop and see how "zoomy" the 135 setting is, and how it feels in the hand.

My own research had turned up a few Tamron lenses which seem to be quite small. 28-75 Xr Di seems to have won some awards and be an acceptable size, but 75 doesn't sound enough somehow.

Thanks both for your help.

[DaveG]

Thank you for your input.

I did use the kit lens once to take a wide angle shot of my 6-month daughter Katy in the bath, when the 50mm just would not do, and it's OK I guess. There's a marked difference though, as you say. So I use it only if I need it, and generally I'm taking infoor portraits so the 50mm fits the bill just fine.

The problem is that Katy is getting more mobile, and soon she won't just look at me whilst I compose the picture. I don't think I have much use for the wider angles, but I'm anticipating wanting to get a shot from further away.

I said 200mm but to be honest I have no real concept of how that will be (I really am a beginner). I guess it's possible that 28-135 would be OK. Maybe I should go try one in a shop and see how "zoomy" the 135 setting is, and how it feels in the hand.

My own research had turned up a few Tamron lenses which seem to be quite small. 28-75 Xr Di seems to have won some awards and be an acceptable size, but 75 doesn't sound enough somehow.

Thanks both for your help.

You might want to have a look at the Canon 24-85 mm f3.5-4.5 zoom. It's quite small and will give you focal lengths from moderate wide angle to short telephoto. It's a bit slow but it's reasonably priced and very sharp. I have this lens and it sits in my bag with a couple of L series lenses (16-35 & 70-200 f2.8 ) and the 50 f1.4.

Yet it still gets used, and I'm still happy with it.

[PacAce]

Thank you for your input.

I did use the kit lens once to take a wide angle shot of my 6-month daughter Katy in the bath, when the 50mm just would not do, and it's OK I guess. There's a marked difference though, as you say. So I use it only if I need it, and generally I'm taking infoor portraits so the 50mm fits the bill just fine.

The problem is that Katy is getting more mobile, and soon she won't just look at me whilst I compose the picture. I don't think I have much use for the wider angles, but I'm anticipating wanting to get a shot from further away.

I said 200mm but to be honest I have no real concept of how that will be (I really am a beginner). I guess it's possible that 28-135 would be OK. Maybe I should go try one in a shop and see how "zoomy" the 135 setting is, and how it feels in the hand.

My own research had turned up a few Tamron lenses which seem to be quite small. 28-75 Xr Di seems to have won some awards and be an acceptable size, but 75 doesn't sound enough somehow.

Thanks both for your help.

The 28-135 should give you just a little more reach on the wide and the tele end than you're used with your G1 which has a range of 34-102 in 35mm equivalence. And the 28-135 IS isn't all that heavy although it is a little longer than the 50mm (about 1.5 times as long) at the wide end although it will extend out a little more when zoomed to tele.

[stuartf287]

Actually, the 28-135 will give you a little LESS coverage at the wide end than your G4. Due to the 1.6 crop factor, the 28-135 on a 10D or 300D converts to the equivalent of 44-216 for 35mm film lenses. When I used Pentax film cameras I had a 45-125 F4 zoom that was very sharp and (I thought) excellent for portrait situations. I find the 28-135 IS zoom to be even better on my 10D and D60 because it covers all of the focal lengths traditionally considered ideal for portraits (85mm-105mm) and then some on both ends. You should consider this lens to be a normal-to-telephoto zoom on the 10D.

[wintoid]

Ah great! Comparing to the G1 is really helping me to visualise what the zoom ranges mean.

So if the G1 is equivalent to 34-102, and the 300d has a 1.6 crop factor, then the 24-85 is better, giving about 38 - 136 effective, and the 28-135 giving about 44 - 216 effective.

I really like the 24-85 recommendation. Looking at the pictures I've found of it, it looks about the size of lens I want to be lugging around on my camera. 28-135 just looks a little unwieldy for me. I think I'll see if I can try out a 24-85 in my local camera store.

Thank you all so much for your recommendations.

[timmyquest]

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/focallength/index.html

I think that'll give you a great idea of zoom ranges ;-)

[Tito948]

Go for the 28-135mm. It was recommended to me here also to get as for first lens for my 10D. I love it. It's a great anytime lens. It's still my first lens but I love it anyway.

Tito

[wintoid]

I know a lot of people like the 28-135, but part of this is lens dimensions. Look at this... 50mm 1.4: http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/canon_50.jpg 24-85mm: http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/canon_24_85.jpg 28-135mm: http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/canon_28_135.jpg The 28-135 is way bigger. Or perhaps can an owner of a 28-135 tell me whether the zoom is fully retracted in this picture? At the end of the day, if I decide that 85mm is enough, I'll probably go with that. If I think it isn't, perhaps I won't buy a lens :shock: Thanks for that link Timmy, which is pretty cool.

[slin100]

The 28-135 is way bigger.
One thing you'll want to keep in mind is that the 28-135 has Image Stabilization.

[Calis]

Ok, I have my 28-135 in my hand as we speak. The picture you posted above shows it at it's smallest, at 135mm it gets almost a 1/4 longer. Also it is very heavy, hang on a mo while I take it off the 300D....

... right, with the 300D in one hand and the 28-135 in the other they seem to weigh about the same.

(just put them back together again..)

I suspect that you are right and the 24-85 will suit you better.

That being said I came to the 300D from a P&S & it all seemed very big & heavy for a week of two, but now if I have to stick on the kit lens for a wide angle it seems very light & insubstantial & I love the pics I get from the 28-135. Probably best to try them both & see which you prefer.

[dtrayers]

I picked up a 24-85 specifically because it is very close to the zoom range of the G3 I came from. I find it to be a fine lens.

[Wickedfn4u]

Well I had the canon 28-135 and it is an amazing lens for the price. I took some soccer pictures for my daughter’s team and it did very nice. But that being said, it is a little bit larger than a good carry around lens and on gray soccer days it was not fast enough for good action shots. I sold it and bought the Tamron 28-75 XR DI and love it too. Not all the range as the 28-135 but the f2.8 lets me get great shots at low light. Then I cover the range with a Sig 70-200 2.8. One site I used a lot was the one below to see how they compared.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd

The lens does not way much and is very compact for the zoom but nothing is going to be a 50mm prime.

TC

[wintoid]

Thanks for that info. I think I'm gradually narrowing down my search to the 24-85 Canon or the 28-75 Tamron. The Canon has the advantage on size and range, but the Tamron might be a better lens all round. I'm hoping to see a 24-85 this week and get a feel for it. I'll let you all know how I get on :)

Thanks again.

[cloudless]

The Sigma 55-200 DC is about the same size as the Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens, and it weights only 310 grams!

[wintoid]

I went for the Canon 24-85. It was the smallest of the lenses, and I *almost* didn't buy it because it's probably just a smidge larger than I was hoping. Once on the camera, it balances well, and I'm really delighted with it.

Here's one of my first 5 shots with it.

http://simon.pietroni.co.uk/albums/katy_6month/102_0252.sized.jpg

Once again my thanks to everyone for their advice.

[Cadwell]

Thanks for that info. I think I'm gradually narrowing down my search to the 24-85 Canon or the 28-75 Tamron. The Canon has the advantage on size and range, but the Tamron might be a better lens all round. I'm hoping to see a 24-85 this week and get a feel for it. I'll let you all know how I get on :)

Thanks again.

I just sent a Tamron 28-75mm back. It displayed some truly nasty purple fringing at 75mm f/2.8 or f/4.0 ... It may be that I just got a duff one... have to wait and see.

[ron chappel]

I've seen and heard very good things about the tamron 28-75.In fact Cadwell's bad experience is the first one i've heard-most REALLY like it.I wish i could afford one myself to try out...!
But as you can see the 28-135 IS also gets relative rave reviews

I don't think there are any other lenses that immediately come to mind.
If cadwells problem is indeed a one off (?) i could heartilly recommend either the tamron or canon 28-135
......followed by the canon 24-85-because it may not come quite close enough to the image quality you're used to from the awsome 50/1.4

[Cadwell]

I've seen and heard very good things about the tamron 28-75.In fact Cadwell's bad experience is the first one i've heard-most REALLY like it.I wish i could afford one myself to try out...!


I had also seen good reviews which was what prompted me to purchase it. Once I get a replacement/get word from the supplier I'll post an update... hopefully mine was just a "friday afternoon job".

[PacAce]

Actually, the 28-135 will give you a little LESS coverage at the wide end than your G4. Due to the 1.6 crop factor, the 28-135 on a 10D or 300D converts to the equivalent of 44-216 for 35mm film lenses. When I used Pentax film cameras I had a 45-125 F4 zoom that was very sharp and (I thought) excellent for portrait situations. I find the 28-135 IS zoom to be even better on my 10D and D60 because it covers all of the focal lengths traditionally considered ideal for portraits (85mm-105mm) and then some on both ends. You should consider this lens to be a normal-to-telephoto zoom on the 10D.

Doh! Yeah, you're right. Forgot about the 1.6 mag-factor. :oops:
Thanks for the correction.