Wider Zoom Quandary

[FJC]

I'm pondering my next lens choice, and I'm in a quandary on what to save towards. :)

Currently, I have the following lenses:
70-200mm f/4L - fantastic, I love this lens
1.4x teleconverter - adds to my reach with the above lens
50mm f/1.8 II - really love this one as well
18-55mm EFS Rebel "kit" lens - eh...

My main gripes with the Rebel kit lens is the lack of sharpness at times (especially wide open at the edges), the noise of the non-USM motor, rotating front, etc.

I'm looking for something that will be my main go-to lens when I don't need the reach of the 70-200mm. Mostly for indoor photos, so light may be an issue (well, isn't it always?) - I do, however, have a 550ex flash to assist. Group shots, candids, informal portraits, pets, ebay stuff, etc.

I've been considering the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's priced right. I've read mixed reviews on here (some seem to say it's fantastic, others say it's mediocre). I'm concerned that I'd lose some of the extra wide-ness of the 18-55mm, but this lens does fill that gap between the 18-55mm and my 70-200mm. f/3.5 isn't the fastest around, but from what I keep reading the IS should make up for the slower shutter speeds I'd be shooting at.

I'm also considering the 17-40 f/4L. A bit more than the 28-135mm IS, but it *is* an L lens. I'd gain more width over the 28-135mm, but I'd lose a lot on the other end, in fact I'd have less than the 18-55mm... I'm also concerned about f/4 not being good enough for my indoor requirements. I do like that 17mm end, though, for those wider shots.

Also considering the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Wow, big bucks here, really it's out of my price range at the moment. Again, I lose some on the wide angle, but I nicely complement the 70-200mm range-wise. f/2.8 would be great indoors.

So, comments/recommendations? Do you think I'd be happy with the 28-135mm IS USM (which is the simple choice, as it's affordable and covers the range well)? Or would I find this just a very marginal improvement over the 18-55mm kit lens? Or should I go 17-40mm f/4L to keep the width, lose some mid-range (basically the 40-70mm range, though I do have the 50mm f/1.8), and fill it in later? Or, deal with the kit lens for now and save for a few months and go all-out for the 24-70mm f/2.8, and maybe fill in the wide end with some wide-angle prime eventually?

Thanks for the help!

[DaveG]

I'm pondering my next lens choice, and I'm in a quandary on what to save towards. :)

Currently, I have the following lenses:
70-200mm f/4L - fantastic, I love this lens
1.4x teleconverter - adds to my reach with the above lens
50mm f/1.8 II - really love this one as well
18-55mm EFS Rebel "kit" lens - eh...

My main gripes with the Rebel kit lens is the lack of sharpness at times (especially wide open at the edges), the noise of the non-USM motor, rotating front, etc.

I'm looking for something that will be my main go-to lens when I don't need the reach of the 70-200mm. Mostly for indoor photos, so light may be an issue (well, isn't it always?) - I do, however, have a 550ex flash to assist. Group shots, candids, informal portraits, pets, ebay stuff, etc.

I've been considering the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. It's priced right. I've read mixed reviews on here (some seem to say it's fantastic, others say it's mediocre). I'm concerned that I'd lose some of the extra wide-ness of the 18-55mm, but this lens does fill that gap between the 18-55mm and my 70-200mm. f/3.5 isn't the fastest around, but from what I keep reading the IS should make up for the slower shutter speeds I'd be shooting at.

I'm also considering the 17-40 f/4L. A bit more than the 28-135mm IS, but it *is* an L lens. I'd gain more width over the 28-135mm, but I'd lose a lot on the other end, in fact I'd have less than the 18-55mm... I'm also concerned about f/4 not being good enough for my indoor requirements. I do like that 17mm end, though, for those wider shots.

Also considering the 24-70mm f/2.8L. Wow, big bucks here, really it's out of my price range at the moment. Again, I lose some on the wide angle, but I nicely complement the 70-200mm range-wise. f/2.8 would be great indoors.

So, comments/recommendations? Do you think I'd be happy with the 28-135mm IS USM (which is the simple choice, as it's affordable and covers the range well)? Or would I find this just a very marginal improvement over the 18-55mm kit lens? Or should I go 17-40mm f/4L to keep the width, lose some mid-range (basically the 40-70mm range, though I do have the 50mm f/1.8), and fill it in later? Or, deal with the kit lens for now and save for a few months and go all-out for the 24-70mm f/2.8, and maybe fill in the wide end with some wide-angle prime eventually?

Thanks for the help!

The 17-40 f4 L is going to be a better lens than the 28-135. No doubt about it. You have covered most of the 28-135's focal length with other lenses so I'm not sure what it gives you other than IS. The 17-40 will finally give you a wide angle (27mm) while the 28-135 is effectively a normal lens (45mm). It is slow, but you have the 50 for speed and the 28-135 is no faster. And after it's all over you'll have an L lens which should last a very long time.

While the 24-70 f2.8 is a wonderful lens as well I don't think that the speed of that lens in that focal length is anything to write home about. All along its focal length it would be almost impossible to sell a non-zoom lens that slow. Perhaps a 24 f2.8, but after that? A 35mm f2.8? A 50 f2.8 that's not a macro? If you do buy that lens buy it for the optical excellence and AF speed not the widest aperture of the lens.

[ssim]

I know someone that has the 28-135. He calls it his "walkaround" lens and it seems to do a fine job. I haven't heard him talk about using it indoors though.

The 24-70 f2.8 is a great lens and is the one that probably spends the most time on my camera. It is a good general purpose focal length.

If you are going to be doing alot of indoors without flash and you need the space in the 17-40 range you might find that the f4.0 might be limiting in certain conditions. I have the 16-35 f.28 and works incredibly well in low light conditions. This is more expensive than the 17-40 but well worth the expense in my opinion.

When I was first starting to build up my lens collection I made some poor choices and ultimately ended up replacing some of the one that I had bought simply because they were not doing the job that I needed it to do.

This is a task not to be taken lightly and for myself I really had to sit back and consider what type of shooting I would be doing predominantly and what would best suit me for that.

Good luck

[Lesmac]

I ve both the 28-135mm USM IS lens, and the 17-40mm lens, until I got the 17-40 the 28-135 was my walkabout lens, not any more, the 17-40 is almost a permanent fixture, it's the sweetest lens I've owned, and can't recommend it highly enough.
I have a number of samples of images in my gallery if you care to take a look.
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

Regards

Les

[FJC]

Thanks for all the comments and picture samples, they're all great!

I'm now leaning toward the 17-40mm F/4L.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know if the 18-55mm of the Rebel kit lens takes into account the 1.6 crop factor? In other words, is it a true 18-55mm, or is it effectively 28-88mm?

[Mike H]

I think it's a no brainer: get the 17-40/4L.

I own and really like the 16-35/2.8L, and bought it rather than the 17-40 since I was concerned about the extra stop. Even if I am forced to use flash, I like to maximize the amount of ambient light in photos by shooting wide open and cutting back on the flash. However, I have ended up turning to my primes (fixed focal length lenses) whenever I am in low light anyway, and haven't really shot the 16-35 at f/2.8 that much. Now I wish that I had bought the lighter, slightly smaller, and much less expensive lens.

If you really believe with certainty that you will use that f/2.8 setting, it may be worth the price difference to you. But I would really think about that!

There's a good comparison review of the two wide zooms here

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml

The 28-135 is terrific, but given the lens lineup that you have, I agree with the others that recommended the 17-40. Good luck.

Mike H

[DaveG]

Thanks for all the comments and picture samples, they're all great!

I'm now leaning toward the 17-40mm F/4L.

Out of curiousity, does anyone know if the 18-55mm of the Rebel kit lens takes into account the 1.6 crop factor? In other words, is it a true 18-55mm, or is it effectively 28-88mm?

It's a 28-88 and the 17-40 is a 27-64.

In order to know how much magnification you get from a given lens you need to know the size of the film or sensor. If the 1.6 conversion was going to more than a transitional size then we'd all start to abandon "effective" focal lengths and speak of the effect of a 17 as being a reality unto itself. I mean a 90 mm lens is a short telephoto in 35mm, a normal lens in medium format and a wide angle in 4x5 LF; and at least within those formats no one rushes to translate the effective focal lengths, You just know that a 65mm is a super wide angle for 4x5.

What separates all of these lenses is the image circle. A 35 mm lens HAS to throw an image circle that will cover the diagonal of 24x36 mm. If you used this lens on a medium format camera you would actually see a circle since the image circle is too small for format. The kit lens has an image circle that's too small for 35mm and that's why it's a drebel/10D lens only, since the small CMOS is all it has to cover. The problem will come if you ever upgrade to a Mark II or a D1s (or a future generation of Canon camera that isn't 1.6) since you'd run into the image circle problem. My understanding is that Canon has made those lenses in such a way that they won't physically fit on a 1.3 or 1.0 camera, and that's probably to keep us out of trouble.

[Andy_T]

If you need the sharpness of the 24-70 f/2.8L, but not it's build quality (and not the price :lol: ) ...

... take a look at the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 XR DI for around 350$ at B+H.

You can always keep the kit lens in your camera bag for the occasional wide shot until you get the 17-40 L

Best regards,
Andy

[samdring]

I ve both the 28-135mm USM IS lens, and the 17-40mm lens, until I got the 17-40 the 28-135 was my walkabout lens, not any more, the 17-40 is almost a permanent fixture, it's the sweetest lens I've owned, and can't recommend it highly enough.
I have a number of samples of images in my gallery if you care to take a look.
http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

Regards

Les

I, like Les have both but unlike Les still tend to use 28-135 a lot - I think build quality rather than lens quality is the most significant difference

Les - love your shots - what a pity so many of them are of Yorkshire :)

[Guillermo Freige]

I use the 28-135IS and a Sigma 12-24 as my main lenses. The 28-135 IS is used moslty for portraits and detail shots, and all the wideangle terrain is covered by the 12-24. In landscape work the 12-24 is my main lens. Not very fast (f/4.5-5.6) but sharpness and distortion is very similar in all aperture range and focal lengths. I've never used the 18-55 again since the 12-24 buy.

[Lesmac]

Les - love your shots - what a pity so many of them are of Yorkshire

Thanks Sam, BTW, where's Derbyshire :D

[elm54]

I think it's a no brainer: get the 17-40/4L.

haven't really shot the 16-35 at f/2.8 that much. Now I wish that I had bought the lighter, slightly smaller, and much less expensive lens.

Mike H

Mike I have a 17-40 L Hardly used mint and may consider trading it for a 16-35 along with some cash if the deal is good :D

Also I have a 24-70 and it is my walking around lense, too big but....It is a wonderful lens.Way more conspicuous than a 28-135, I sometimes wish I had one of those :wink: . (good range ) Recently I bought a 15mm fisheye and really like it . Alot of fun and real wide.

[FJC]

Thanks so much everyone for all the comments and information. After much consideration, I really think I need a quality lens with a good wide angle - so it looks like it's the 17-40mm F/4L for me.