What lens to fill this gap ?

[adrianweller]

I've pretty much decided to upgrade my D60 to an XT/350D on the basis mainly that the size and lighter weight will mean I take it with me a lot more than I have done in the past. Weight is quite an issue for me as I have gotten quite used to what I can do with my S60 !

My current lens lineup (all Canon) is :-

17mm-40mm L
28mm 2.8 (pretty old model I think - picked up 2nd hand up on a whim)
28-90m 4/5.6 (kit lens)
75mm-300mm 4/5/6 IS

The last one will have to stay - by all accounts the new DO lens doesn't seem that much better and is no lighter. But it won't get used much because of the weight.

But I reckon I should be able to do a lot better than the 28-90 qualitywise and get something a bit longer at the same time. 28-135 IS seems to suit a lot of people although I'm not sure if the IS is worth the extra weigh at that length. But I would appreciate comments from anyone as to how good it really is.

That apart can anyone recommmend a reasonably lightwight and compact general purpose zoom, maybe up to 200mm that everyone pretty much raves about ? (Doesn't necessarily have to be Canon) Oh and preferably with a 58mm or 77mm filter size !

Thanks

Adrian

[cactusclay]

The Canon 24-85 is supposed to be just a image quality notch below the 28-135 IS and much lighter, which would make it about the second best comsumer grade zoom lens Canon makes, according to some tests. That with your 75-300 would take care of most of your shooting needs. I would think it would be difficult to go down in quality from the 17-40, without noticing the results, though.

[griff2]

I you're interested in an up to 200mm zoom, there's the 70-200 f/4 L or the more expensive 70-200 f/2.8 L which is much better than the 75-300, even with IS.

[malcolmx]

i would go for the 70-200 is i use this all the time if weight is atrue problem a belt pouch will help this lens is so fast that i would put weight at the bottom of my list

[Andy_T]

Well, take a look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI.

It's more than a notch in image quality above the 28-135 and a constant 2.8 lens. Hard to beat for $330.

Best regards,
Andy

[antaine]

just ordered the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI this morning, based on rave reviews of this lense - hope to have it in time for St Patrick's Day!

[Hellashot]

Look at the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5. I just ordered mine. It'll give you the field of view of 38-215 for about $300 with a 77mm filter size.

[PJ Saine]

17mm-40mm L
28mm 2.8 (pretty old model I think - picked up 2nd hand up on a whim)
28-90m 4/5.6 (kit lens)
75mm-300mm 4/5/6 IS


Adrian -

Here's something to think about: You have a range of 17-300 covered by zoom. Consider a 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 to give you a nice portrait lens within the focal length gap.

Positives: light weight, larger aperture than the lenses above for available light. Not expensive.

By the way - moved from D60 to 20D and it was well worth it!

PJ
www.pjsaine.com

[adrianweller]

Thanks for all the advice folks. Still makes me think there's a gap for a top notch (L even) standard/mid-range zoom going up to 12/150 (say) and not too heavy with it !