Good lens choice for ~24-200mm range?

[elbirth]

I really want to get a good lens for Christmas that I can have as generally a walk around lens that has a good range for my 20D. I'm looking most likely under $450 or so, if that's possible.

I've seen the Canon 28-135mm discussed and see both really good reviews and really bad reviews. This makes me wary to look into this lens, even though at around $400 it'll be a great range for me and fit my budget. Who has this lens and can provide some feedback on it and perhaps some sample pictures?

Any other recommendations? I want the range to be as large as possible- not something like the 70-200mm L lens; that doesn't have a wide enough range for me. I really would like something with the wide end being somewhere between 20-35mm, preferably 24mm or 28mm.

[vfilby]

I just bought the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II. I haven't used it enough to give you a review but when I bought it many people recommended it. Better yet, I bought it for a couple hundred. If I find a used tamron 28-75 XR Di I would consider buying it as well.

Here is what some said about the 28-105: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=47646&highlight=

[elbirth]

That looks very promising, thanks! And for nearly $200 less than the 28-135mm as well.
You wouldn't have happened to have gotten a lens hood for it too, would you? I really like having one on my lens when I'm shooting, and the hood B&H offers for it is the kind I really like (the petal-shaped one).

This may very well be my next lens unless there are any other suggestions for me to consider that might out-weigh it.

[vfilby]

I bought the lens w/ caps and hood for $240CDN used.

Many people like the tamron 28-75 as well, so you should look into it as well

[vfilby]

ohh. there are two version of the 28-105. There is the cheap plastic one which I think starts at f4, and the good one at f3.5. Make sure you get the f3.5-4.5 version. Double check the thread I linked to above for that info.

[elbirth]

Yeah, I noticed that while searching around for prices. A brand new 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 at B&H is $230 US, and the hood I'm looking at is $24.

That Tamron lens looks very nice, but I currently have a Sigma 28-80mm and, even though it's not the sharpest lens and I'd like one to replace it, I still find myself sometimes wanting more reach... with the Tamron lens I'd actually be losing 5mm.

Thanks for the input

[vfilby]

I hope your lens search is fruitful!

[photography By Evangelos]

Tokina has a very good lens in this range 24-200 here is the link.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220057&is=REG


It also has a very good review. Here is the link.

http://photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tokina/PRD_85225_3128crx.aspx

They build great lense.


Angelo 8)

[commando]

I have the 28-75, and i'm kindof wishing i'd gotten an longer lens - like the Tokina just mentioned perhaps. The Tamron is probably sharper, and it's definitely a little faster, so it's a bit of a toss up. You have to ballance the zoom range with sharpness, speed, and price. Obviously you could just get the Tamron and then get a 75-300 or 100-300 range lens, or a guy here at work even just get a 300mm or so prime.

[elbirth]

Tokina has a very good lens in this range 24-200 here is the link.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=220057&is=REG


It also has a very good review. Here is the link.

http://photographyreview.com/pscLenses/35mm,Zoom/Tokina/PRD_85225_3128crx.aspx

They build great lense.


Angelo 8)

That looks like a VERY good possibility for me... you wouldn't happen to own it yourself and have some samples, would you? Or know where I can find some good samples? I see talk about it being soft on the edges and would like to see just what's being talked about

[jyrgen]

I recently bought Tokina 24-200 as backup/one-lens-only-walkaround lens. It is definitely better than I believed any hyperzoom can be. Sharp (at longer end I'd rather close one stop though). Faster and quiter autofocus than many other third party lenses, worse than USM obviously. Manual focus ring is ridiculous though. Pretty compact for the range, well built body.

For daylight walkaround with one lens only this is definitely fine choice. It's actually pretty cool to be able to go from 24mm to 200mm instantly.

I actually did walk around with it few days ago, if I have time tonight I might try to post some pics.

[commando]

I recently bought Tokina 24-200 as backup/one-lens-only-walkaround lens. It is definitely better than I believed any hyperzoom can be. Sharp (at longer end I'd rather close one stop though). Faster and quiter autofocus than many other third party lenses, worse than USM obviously. Manual focus ring is ridiculous though. Pretty compact for the range, well built body.

For daylight walkaround with one lens only this is definitely fine choice. It's actually pretty cool to be able to go from 24mm to 200mm instantly.

I actually did walk around with it few days ago, if I have time tonight I might try to post some pics.

Got any pics you can show us?

[edmund]

I have the Canon 28-135IS. Also the Canon 17-40 and the 70-200f/4. Perhaps I have a very good copy of the 28-135 but I can't see much difference in sharpness to the 17-40 ... even at high magnification (or maybe I have a poor 17-40 - but I don't think so). The 70-200 is a different story though - blows the other two out of the water for sharpness, contrast and colour.
The 28-135 is my walkaround - I like its weight, its range, the reach it gives and I also appreciate the stop or two the IS gives.

[jyrgen]

I actually did walk around with it few days ago, :arrow: if I have time tonight I might try to post some pics.
Got any pics you can show us?

[Andy_T]

I have the Canon 28-135IS. Also the Canon 17-40 and the 70-200f/4. Perhaps I have a very good copy of the 28-135 but I can't see much difference in sharpness to the 17-40 ... even at high magnification (or maybe I have a poor 17-40 - but I don't think so). The 70-200 is a different story though - blows the other two out of the water for sharpness, contrast and colour.

Maybe you should have your 17-40 checked.... :roll:

Best regards,
Andy

[elbirth]

I recently bought Tokina 24-200 as backup/one-lens-only-walkaround lens. It is definitely better than I believed any hyperzoom can be. Sharp (at longer end I'd rather close one stop though). Faster and quiter autofocus than many other third party lenses, worse than USM obviously. Manual focus ring is ridiculous though. Pretty compact for the range, well built body.

For daylight walkaround with one lens only this is definitely fine choice. It's actually pretty cool to be able to go from 24mm to 200mm instantly.

I actually did walk around with it few days ago, if I have time tonight I might try to post some pics.

That'd be great, I'd love to see some samples if you do get a change tonight

[photography By Evangelos]

Sorry no pix. I have a local friend who has the lens and he told me it is way better that his 28-135 IS in terms of optical performance. Also as I fact Tokina is way faster A/F than Tmaron and Sigma.




Angelo 8)

[jyrgen]

Well, I took the time. I uploaded few shots from the walk few days ago, plus I shot a lot more indoor. Outdoor pics are all f/8, because that is the aperture I constantly use with variable aperture non-first-grade lenses to make sure I am stopped down 1 stop at longer end, which usually means f/8. Indoor I shot various lenghts at both wide open and f/8.

The shots are just handheld snapshots with flash, please don't pay attention to composition or even exposure. Plus, they are BreezeBrowsed for web, so no pixel peeping. But my experience is that when a picture looks good at this size, it also looks good printed, and vice versa.

The pics are here (http://www.zone.ee/jhv2/tokina24200/index.htm). My own conclusion - a bit soft wide open, though usable if absolutely necessary. Very usable at f/8. Shorter lengths probably good already stopped down 1 stop, I did not try that. If anyone wants a 100% crop or additional specific shots for pixel level test, I have some time, a tripod and newspapers :D I doubt however that this lens is a "pixel-peeper".

[elbirth]

Thanks for taking the time to put up some samples! :)

The quality on those look very good, I'm impressed. I'm assuming by your sig that these were taken using a 10D?

I think this lens will definitely be on my Christmas list now, hopefully along with a Sigma 500 DG Super E-TTL II flash and a Lowepro CompuTrekker AW backpack.

Also, if you don't mind, with my being new to SLRs in general, I was kind of lost at your mentioning of being stopped down 1 stop at the longer end and being stopped down 1 stop at shorter lengths.
I understand that this is talking about the f-stop number (aperture size) but if you wouldn't mind explaining or can point me elsewhere that talks about it, what exactly does all of that mean, how do you determine if you're stopped down X number of stops at any given focal length, and what significance does it offer? I'm assuming it helps with sharpness of the picture or something?

Thanks a LOT! :D

[jyrgen]

I'm assuming by your sig that these were taken using a 10D?
Yes.

I think this lens will definitely be on my Christmas list now
FWIW, I'd seriously consider once more whether you absolutely need all this range in one lens. You can usually zoom pretty much with your feet within these ranges. Provided you use wide end much more than long end, I'd rather take Tamron 28-75, which is excellent, and some tele zoom, e.g. Canon 100-300, which is decent. If bought used, you'd almost fit in your budget. But, if it has to be one lens, and you will use flash indoor anyway, this Tokina could be fine choice, also taking into account 24mm wide end.

I understand that this is talking about the f-stop number (aperture size) but if you wouldn't mind explaining or can point me elsewhere that talks about it, what exactly does all of that mean, how do you determine if you're stopped down X number of stops at any given focal length, and what significance does it offer? I'm assuming it helps with sharpness of the picture or something?
I'm not good in explaining that, but yes, very simply put, closer aperture gives you sharper pictures. Especially with consumer lenses, which tend to be too soft wide open (at their widest aperture). Decent ones (of consumer lenses), like this one, become acceptably sharp already when stopped down (aperture cloesd) a little bit, maybe one stop. Now, problem with consumer lenses again is that they have variable max aperture, e.g. this Tokina has max aperture of f/3.5 at wide end and f/5.6 at tele end. And something inbetween. So it is hard to determine on the fly, which aperture one should use in middle zoom settings to get acceptably sharp pictures. So, since I use AV mode anyway, I close them down to f/8, if light levels allow.

[commando]

I wish Canon had a decent 100-300 lens, preferably an L lens. The 70-200 F4 is probably shorter than what I want, and the 100-300 gets only average reviews. If anyone knows a good zoom lens to go with my 28-75 i'd be most interested.

[elbirth]

Thanks for all that info jyrgen, I really appreciate it.
I really do want to get a lens with a big range in zoom so I can have a lens that's my "default" for any given situation. Right now I use my 50mm when I can easily move around and frame with my feet, my 28-80mm as my more or less default now, and my 100-300mm for when I want to shoot some birds or other animals that tend to leave when I get too close, etc.

I really want a wide-ranged lens for a more general purpose, because when I'm just walking around with my camera with no set goal in mind, I like to be able to just have one lens that I can have on my camera and just have that. Then no matter if I see something close or far away to take a picture of, I already have a lens on there that can do both.