Next lens for 20D?

[soarprod]

Hi All, I am debating between the 28-135IS v. the 70-200L F4 - I currently have the 18-55. I know they are different ranges but budget says that I cant get both. I would like a good all around lens (although 18-55 covers closer shots +70-200 covers tele) but I have some concerns over the 28-135 (dust, creep, CA, quality). Is anyone satisfied with the 28-135? Or, would I be better saving up for the 17-85 IS? Or go with the 28-105 & 70-200L? Again, I have no particular shooting habits - This is a recreational camera as well as for family shots - though I do like taking nature and landscape shots :D . Thanks

[Jon]

Have you seen the Top Ten Starter Lens (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56747) thread? Both those lenses are on the list there.

[jbradc]

i have the 70-200 F4L and love it, nice size and tack sharp. You can not go wrong with that lens. the others I have not used.

[Persian-Rice]

If you already have the 18-55 then get a 70-200 and keep using the 18-55, its not all that bad of a lens.

[Marvinspu36]

I am a bit of a newbe, so take what I say for whatever it is worth...

I currently have both the 28-135 and the 70-200 F4L. It really depends on what you are going to be shooting. I use the 70-200 when I know I'm going to be shooting subjects that are typically 40 feet or more away from me. I find the 28-135 is just not quite enough. On the flip side, if I'm walking around taking pictures, say at a reception, or on vacation, I tend to keep the 28-135 on my camera, since the subject tends to be much closer. I then switch lenses if I need to.

It is definately a tough decision. I think you need to ask yourself what you will be shooting the most. One thought is to rent both lenses and get a feel for what each one is capable of. The nice thing about the 70-200 is it is F4 throughout it's range, whereas the 28-135 is 3.5 to 5.6.

Since you have the 18-55, you might find the 70-200 a better value, than the 28-135 right now. Later on, you can deside what you want to upgrade to in order to fill the gap. In my experience, lenses tend to be a little bit soft at their extents, so you want enough overlap in your lenses so you can shoot with them in their sharp zones.

Hope this helps.

[cactusclay]

I just recently had the oportunity to test both of those lenses out and I was very impressed with the 70-200. It was lite and sleek and very sharp and the build quality is far better than the 28-135. I actually have considered the 28-135 for doing weddings, with just one body, but I really like the bokeh of the primes, so I couldn't bring myself to buy one. If I were just a recreational shooter, then I think I would get the 28-135, for it's versatility. Once you get an L lens, it makes it very hard to buy anything else, so you might be better on in the long run not to even go there-money wise.

[merrrrjig]

Im in the same spot, I have the 20D w/ 18-55. And I want the 2 lenses. I am going to get the 28-135 cuz I need that up close lens more.

[lomond]

I have two L lenses, the 100-400L and the 17-40 L.
I also have 3 non-L lenses including the 28-135.
Now, I like the 28-135 as a walk around lens but I don't think it compares to L glass, and since you have the 18-55 I would suggest the 70-200 F4.
At a later date the 1.4 TC could be added to the 70-200 F4 giving you 280mm and keeping AF.

[soarprod]

Well, I ordered the 28-135 IS from B&H a few min ago. It will be a better walk around lens for general stuff like what I do - I will get the 70-200 F4 later when I save up some more money :D .Thanks for the replies!

[lomond]

You won't be disappointed it's a great walk around lens.
The IS is very useful indoors, especially in areas where flash can't be used.