which lens to fill the gap?

[Red Squirrel]

Hi,
I currently have a 17-40L, 50 f1.8 and 100-400L on my 10d, but need something to fill the 40-100 range.
It doesn't look like canon do an L lens in this range, so what other choices do I have?

cheers!

[pcasciola]

You are probably going to get a lot replies about getting the 28-135mm IS, which is not a bad lens but I wasn't overly impressed with it. The IS is nice to have though, but that's mostly what you are paying for on that lens in my opinion.

For about the same price as the 28-135mm (~$400) you can get the 28-75mm F/2.8 Tamron which many people seem to think is very close in performance to the $1200 Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, although I have never used one. A friend of mine has the Canon 24-70mm on the 20D and he is getting some very good results with it, so if it is in fact close to that I would be happy with it.

You'll still have a little bit of a gap there, but not much. Plus, with the money saved getting the Tamron, you could also add the Canon 85mm F/1.8 and still save almost $500 vs. getting the 24-70L.

[HJMinard]

You are probably going to get a lot replies about getting the 28-135mm IS, which is not a bad lens but I wasn't overly impressed with it. The IS is nice to have though, but that's mostly what you are paying for on that lens in my opinion.

For about the same price as the 28-135mm (~$400) you can get the 28-75mm F/2.8 Tokina which many people seem to think is very close in performance to the $1200 Canon 24-70mm F/2.8L, although I have never used one. A friend of mine has the Canon 24-70mm on the 20D and he is getting some very good results with it, so if it is in fact close to that I would be happy with it.

You'll still have a little bit of a gap there, but not much. Plus, with the money saved getting the Tokina, you could also add the Canon 85mm F/1.8 and still save almost $500 vs. getting the 24-70L.

I think you mean the Tamron - I haven't heard anything bad about the Tokina, but then again I haven't heard anything about it at all. I have been amazed by the consistent sharpness I get from the Tamron 28-75/2.8. Highly recommended. If you want additional telephoto capability, the 28-135 might be your only choice.

[pcasciola]

[quote="HJMinardI think you mean the Tamron[/quote]

WHOOPS!!!! :oops: :oops: :oops:

Thanks for that catch. Yes, I meant Tamron. It was early in the morning when I posted that. I just went back an edited it.

[chris.bailey]

Hate to spend your money for you but you are in the same position as me a year back. You are going to want overlap and not just the gap filling which means the 24-70 and 70-200. Ok there is not 70mm overlap but it makes a hell of a lens line up.

The 28-135 is a nice lens but it isn't L quality.

[cmM]

Canon 24-70 f/2.8L

[Mark Kemp]

The 28-135 does fill the gap nicely and is a good quality lens, though not as good as the L series. The IS can also be useful sometimes.

I have settled for it to fill the same gap as you, not so much because of the cost, but mostly because I only need 3 lenses from 17 to 400 instead of 4, which saves a lot of weight.

[neil_r]

Go on, be a devil... Try Primes

N

[roanjohn]

85 f1.8 and 100 f2 and 135 f2.

Ro1

[timmyquest]

85 f1.8 and 100 f2 and 135 f2.

Ro1

STOP IT STOP IT!

Your slowly making my bank account turn red!

Ehh, at least it'll match my lenses :cry:


Anyways, the first lens that comes to mind is the 28-135, however i'm ont sure if the image quality will statisfy you givin your current collection. Which leads me to think the 24-70 would fit nicely there.

[Red Squirrel]

Lookng at what is available out there and had I known what I know now, I'd probably start all over again with...

15mm prime
24-70L
70-200L
400 prime

I would not be happy with non L glass - I'd always be wishing for that little bit better...

I will consider either the 24-70L or the 28-75 Tamron. I'd probably use that as my walk around... always been very sceptical of non canon lenses though :wink:

[Andy_T]

To me it looks like you don't really have to start over again ... if you add the relatively cheap Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI lens roundup, you only have a small gap between 75 and 100 mm.

Maybe think about adding the 70-200/4.0 L as a light tele option. Of course, you lose an f-stop, but you're talking sensible prices here.

OTOH, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to get rid of that 100-400 L lens. Maybe swap it for one of the 70-200/2.8 L lenses.

Best regards,
Andy

[ScottE]

In my opinion the 28-135 IS is being under rated.

I did some comparative testing using a tripod, mirror lock up and a remote release with my D60 and EOS 3 film cameras.

On the 28-40 part of the range where they overlap, the 28-135 IS was just as sharp as the 17-40 L at all apertures. At the 40 mm end of the range the 28-135 was actually a little sharper. (To be fair, the 17-40 L performs better at the shorter 17-28 part of its zoom range than it does at the longer end.)

On the 70-135 part of its range the 28-135 IS was not quite as sharp as my 70-200/2.8 L at wider apertures. Stopped down to f/8 and smaller the difference was so small that I would consider it insignificant.

The 28-135 IS is probably as close to L quality as you can get without paying the higher price.

If you really want to see an improvement in optical quality, try a 100 mm macro lens (or 90 or 105 mm macro lens from Tamron or Sigma).

[KBMphotography.com]

I had the same L problem recently, having a 17-40 F4L and 70-200 2.8 LIS.

I went for a rare 2nd hand 28-70 F2.8 L - and p/x my 28mmF1.8

Otherwise, get the 24-70 new!

[pcasciola]

I will consider either the 24-70L or the 28-75 Tamron. I'd probably use that as my walk around... always been very sceptical of non canon lenses though :wink:

I'm a little skeptical about the Tamron too, but with all the great reviews and such few negatives, I plan to get one in the next couple of weeks. I'd get the Canon if money was no object, but being that they are supposedly so close in quality, I'd rather take the saved $800 and put it toward another lens. Not to mention, the Tamron is much smaller and about half a pound lighter than the Canon.

That said, a friend of mine took his 20D and Canon 24-70L to a friends wedding last weekend, and the two wedding photographers had, you guessed it, two 20Ds with Canon 24-70L's on them.

[johneo]

I also have the 17-40 L, 50 f1.8 and 100-400 L IS. My lens in the range you ask about is the 28-135 IS ... not an "L" lens but pretty darn good, just the same. IS is great and the price isn't to bad.

If I hit the lottery, I most likely would get the 24-70 L but really see no reason to buy it now. Having said that, my next lens on my wish list is the 70-200 f/4 L, however I doubt I'd get rid of the 28-135.