Fresh Glass

[Curos]

I'm thinking about the next pieces of glass i want to buy, and I've come up with a crude list.

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM

EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

Now a few questions. I know everyone loves their 17-40, and I've heard great things about the 135...How about the 70-200 f/4.0L?

Is it worth it to get the 2.8, or even more the 2.8 IS? i'll be using it for everything from wildlife to occasional sports, and everything in between.

Still open to suggestions on this list, I'll probably end up getting all three by the end of the year or so...anything you would replace? Maybe the Bigma instead? (I know thats a big jump on range ..does the Bigma autofocus on the rebel?) Will be using these on a 300D. Sorry for all the questions, im excited i get to replace the 75-300 f/4-5.6 animal.

[defordphoto]

Curos: All three are good lenses. The 28-135 will be the least sharpest of the three, but it holds it's own and is an excellent walkaround. It was the first lens I bought for my D60 and I still have it, still use it, and don't plan on ever getting rid of it, unless they come out with an L version.

As for the 70-200, I have Big Brother; the f/2.8 IS version and love it. It's my fave low light monster and it's a great addition to anyone's bag, but it is expensive.

If you don't need a lens that fast and mainly shoot outdoors the f/4 version is the clear choice. It's incredibly sharp. Some say sharper than the f/2.8, but that's a discussion for another thread.

When it comes to L glass, they're all sharp as razor blades and all equally capable of producing photo so sharp you'll get Lasik Surgery just viewing the photos.

I also have the 17-40L and other than my long stuff for the track shots, it's my most used lens.

[Curos]

The 28-135 will be the least sharpest of the three

Thanks for the great comments..that one bothers me a bit though. When you say "least sharp," im sure you mean that its still sharp, but not L quality? That's exactly what i plan on using it for, walk around.

And the 70-200, I would love the 2.8 for the low light, but i dont know if i can find almost $1k more for it. I suppose i shall deal with the f/4 for now, and can upgrade whenever I feel the need.

Anyone else got a wise word for these?

[Olegis]

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM


You might as well check out the Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG) instead. It's light, small, relatively cheap, has constant 2.8 aperture and very good optically. It's not up to L quality (neither build nor optical), but for its price it's one of the best lenses one can find.

[Curos]

One of my main reasons for choosing the 135 IS Olegis is indeed, the IS.

[Olegis]

The IS is useful for shooting non-moving objects in low light sutiations, handheld. If you're into it, than the IS lens is what you need. I myself haven't encountered a situation yet, in which I wouldn't be able to take a sharp shot - just bump up the ISO and go with f/2.8. But again, it depends on what and how you shoot.