First lens choice (multi-purpose)

[adam351]

Hi All,

I am weighing up the options on a first lens to go with a 20D. I have been a long time EOS user with film cameras but am taking the step over to digital now. (I still use my EOS 620).

Bearing in mind that I have a Tamron 19-35 (fairly new) and a couple of older used and abused Canon EF lenses (35-105 and 70-210) I am after another zoom that would be the main lens for the 20D.

The lenses I am interested in are the following:

Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 17-85 IS
Tokina 24-200 ATX

I want something that will suit everyday shooting on my travels, indoors and outdoors with my family as we visit some pretty nice places in the near future. I don't really want to spend too much time switching lenses and carrying a selection around with me (with the exception of my existing Tamron if I needed the extra wide angle, the old Canon lenses probably wont be making the trips..).

I am open to all suggestions as I am sure there are similar lenses I have overlooked (any comments on the new 18-200 offerings from Sigma and Tamron).

Also, I will have an opportunity on our up and coming travels to use my brother-in-laws 17-85 IS and 75-300 IS, so I would have a good basis for comparison to another initial choice of lens for myself. Worst case I can always change at a later date.

Appreciate any opinions and advice.

Thanks,

Adam

[Dante King]

Although not the fastest. I love my Tamron 28-300. That breaks down to 44-480 on 20D and it is super light. It serves as my AP lens. While this is not a pro lens it was just right for my line up.

[gasrocks]

Best bet is to plan ahead, if you can. I wouldn't get an "OK" lens that I know I'll try to trade in later. Why not start with good ones you'll keep? Of course it depends a whole lot on your budget and what you want to take pix of! I do believe in prime lenses over zooms, but good/great zooms is a fast way to get the coverage you need - then get some great primes. I have 3 zooms for my 20D that work well and don't cost much (in the bigger picture.) I'd get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 first. Then either the EFs 10-22, or the 70-200/4 L next. 3 zooms and you can relax. Cost about us$1600.

[adam351]

I just read some reviews of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Sounds like a great quality lens for the money. My only gripe would be that I'd like a little more zoom range than what it offers. I wouldn't be really concerned at the wide end with my 19-35 zoom sitting at hand but I guess I would want more at the longer end. This summer though, at least, I need something that can stay on the camera the whole time and get me through a wide range of situations, without giving up too much on quality.
To get an idea of my typical summer travelling experiences I might be taking pictures of my kids one second benefiting from the longer end of the zoom but needing the wide end imediatley available to take something of the surrounding views. With everything else we need to hump around as a family carrying extra camera lenses and having time to switch them is usually impossible!
Since this camera is a keeper (like my old EOS 620) I am sure I will steadily be investing in additional lenses to use for specific purposes. My main concern now is a good general zoom to have over the summer (also my learning period for the new camera).
I think my comment about trading in might be a little misleading, I wouldn't get rid of it after a summer's use in order to generate funds for some better equipment, I'd get rid of it if I was either unhappy with it or after comparing it to my brother-in-laws lenses I could obviously see a quality issue.

[Jon]

Go with the 28-135. It'll complement your 19-35 nicely. It's also an EF not an EF-S so, unlike the 17-85, it'll also fit your EOS 620. I'd be leery about wide zoom ranges like 18 or 24 to 200 mm. If they're good, they're extremely expensive. If they're affordable they're extremely not good.

[adam351]

I know logic points me to the 28-135 option considerring I have the wider Tamron zoom and I should bite the bullet and carry the extra lens around with me. The jury is still out. I think I need to buy the 20D body first and start taking pictures with my Tamron and see how the quality was, I wasn't mega-impressed with it on my 620 but I don't think I have used it enough to judge it completely as yet.

Out of curiousity though, how do the 28-135 f3.5-5.6 IS and the EF 28-200 f3.5-5.6 compare? If the picture quality is about equal I think I'd rather have the longer zoom range over the IS..

[adam351]

I can answer my own question to the above comparing the 28-135 IS and EF 28-200. I just read through the reviews on FredMiranda.com on the 28-200, there are three that compare it to the 28-135 IS and there is no question the 28-135 is a better lens on their opinions, they also rate the Tamron 28-200 (think they are confused here) and Sigma 18-125 over it... I have to admit that Sigma 18-125 seems to look pretty good in many users eyes also.. Any comments here? The 28-135 IS is looking like a strong contender providing I am happy with the results on my Tamron 19-35, otherwise I would rather get a zoom with a wider range than the 28-125 on the low end, maybe like the Sigma or Tokina 24-200.

Found this close to home review there on the Sigma 18-125:
This lens has turned out to be better than I had hoped for. It is so good I have sold Canon 28/135 IS and a Tamron 19/35. It replaces both lenses and produces better results than the pair it replaced. It is all you could hope for in a walk around lens for a 1.6 crop digital camera. Excellent sharpness, detail and color rendition. This is the third Sigma lens I have purchased and I have been pleased with all three.
Scary!!

[nitsch]

I have to admit that Sigma 18-125 seems to look pretty good in many users eyes also.. Any comments here?

I recently had the opportunity to test the Sigma 18-125 back to back with a Canon 28-105 3.5 - 4.5 on my 300D and I liked the sharpness and contrast of the Sigma images and the fantastic range of the lens, however it fell down on a couple of points - vignetting when wide open and noisy AF. If you are prepared to stop down to remove the vignetting (or remove in PS using PTLens plugin or similar) and can put up with the AF noise then its a great lens, I just decided it wasn't the one for me. Hope this info is of some use. :)

[adam351]

You have to remember that I am used to the older EF lenses on my 620, not exactly stealth. I have a USM-II 28-something on my wifes EOS Rebel that is incredibly silent in comparison to those older lenses. I have to admit I really like that (the silence). I need to get my hands on one of these Sigma lenses to try out and see how it compares I think before jumping on it.

[nitsch]

Yep Adam trying it for yourself is the best thing to do.

I was all set to buy the 18-125 based on all the online reviews / sample images I had seen but actually trying it in the flesh left me feeling somewhat dissappointed. The noisy AF isn't the end of the world, but side by side with the near silent USM on the 28-105 it was certainly noticeable. I think the real deal breaker for me was the vignetting, but as I mentioned above you there are ways around this. The sharpness of the images really was quite impressive. Give it a try out!

[adam351]

My only problem is not having my own 20D in my hands to take to the store, to take some pictures and then compare them later on a computer!! I think, if I am going to do this right I will have to get the camera body ahead of time, like now, then be patient and get the lens after some hands on testing. I don't think I will be giving up much advantage on not getting a combo anywhere. Luckily (for the camera body purchase) a $100 rebate started today! :)
I am off to Wolf Camera down the road to see what they have on hand to play with. Other than them I am not sure where else around here would have lenses to try out... (Houston)

[adam351]

Well that was a waste of time. Hopefully I can dig up some more places to visit, Wolf only had one of the lenses I was interested in seeing, the IS 28-135. Glad I took a look at it as I think if I got it there would be some high activity in the need for lens swapping with my wider Tamron, the 1.6x effect is pretty vast for those of us not having encountered it before! That 28mm end sure is pretty close in!
Unfortunately they didn't even have the 17-85 IS to compare with that I would have really like to have seen, no Sigmas, Tokinas or Tamrons, and only a small handfull of Canon lenses, of course they can order in whatever you want....

[KevC]

Hey, I also have that 35-105. It's f/3.5-4.5 right? It's not a bad piece of glass :)

Anyway I'd pick up a 28-75/2.8. That's the next thing on my list... (i think...)

[adam351]

That is the very same 35-105 and yes it is a great lens. I think I am going to go ahead and get the 20D and play around with the lenses I have a little. I have this feeling I will be seeing that Sigma 18-125 in my camera bag one day soon though! :)

I will be grabbing the Sigma EF-500 DG Super flash also, anyone going to alert me in to not going for it while the browse through this thread?

[adam351]

Well, the camera just arrived (20D) and I took some indoor and outdoor shots with my existing lenses to get a feel for the changes (1.6x factor) and focusing ease etc.
Outdoors all lenses performed really well, I was extremely happy with my two old EF lenses, especially the 70-210, very nice. They are slower and noisier to focus than the newer Tamron 19-35 (f3.5-4.5) but didn't have any problems. The colours from the same subjects looked better on the EF lenses that I think are likely to be an over-exposure issue on the Tamron, something to learn about there.
Indoors in a fairly well lit room the Tamron focuses very well every time, with the flash, again, the photos are a little washed out, but then again I wouldn't have used this lens on close subjects before and these subjects were pretty close (3-5ft). The two EF lenses had real difficulty focussing and would not be able to focus without some assist from the flash, bit of a disappointment there.

Based on this, the decision on my next lens choice has now diverged more to the Tamron 28-75 f2.8, it was tending to go to the Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6 but after seeing the results with my lenses I am more inclined to get the faster Tamron for multiple reasons, easier indoor focussing and better bokeh. I think another lens maybe I ought to be considerring is the Sigma 24-60 f2.8.

What's your advice now? Appreciate the help..

[Wavy C]

I've used the Canon 28-135 IS (a borrowed one) and found it a really nice lens. Not only does it focus just fine in low light, the IS feature allows you to take pictures you wouldn't have a chance of getting without it. I was doing sharp shots as low as 1/10 sec.

Another thing maybe worth considering , if you are interested in low light shooting, is that the 28-135 lens has full time manual override, which allows you to tweak the autofocus simply by turning the focusing ring. With most others makes, i believe, you have to first slide the switch on the lens into mf or risk damaging it.

Most importantly, it takes really sharp pictures. Also I like the wide range and the quick, silent autofocus. Oh, and of course the IS! The only real downside is that it doesn't go wider than 28mm (I'd happily sacrfice a little at the long end for this). Something like a 24-120 would be nice! But still the 28-135 is a great choice if you want a single lens to cover most situations.

[adam351]

After much reading through this forum and reviews on the lenses in question, and playing around with the lenses I already have, here is the shortlist in the order I think they suit my needs:

Tamron AF 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
Canon EF 28-135 f3.5/1.6 IS
Canon EF 17-85 f4/5.6 IS
Sigma 24-60 f2.8 EX DG
Sigma 24-135 f2.8/4.5

I think the Tamron will best fit the need of a walk-around lens but I will have to keep my 19-35 zoom fairly handy too. I don't find myself crying for the longer telephoto as often as the wide which is why I put the Tamron above the Canon 28-135, and I would rather have the f2.8. I also put it over the Canon 17-85 for three reasons, f2.8, I have the wide zoom lens in my bagm and the price!

If I get the Tamron I will be able to make a comparison with it to the Canon 28-135 IS and 17-85 IS this summer on vacation with my brother-in-law's lenses, hopefully I wont be disappointed, but if I am I may bite the bullet and chop and change. I think my 35-105 will soon be gracing ebay some other sales place!

Thanks for the help here!

[adam351]

Another quick question!! Tamron 28-75 owners, does it fit in the Canon EH-17L case?

[who me?]

Adam351, make sure you actually handle the Tamron. I went and looked at it and HATED the focus ring moving when I focused on different objects. My supporting hand on the lens was always getting moved because of the focus ring. Even though it is a good lens by all accounts, this was a killer for me. So I settled on the 24-85 Canon that I am now regretting gettting and not looking at the 28-135 when I purchased this. I now feel I want more room at the upper end of the zoom range.
Happy shopping.

[adam351]

This is a little frustrating. (Maybe an omen). I make my mind up to go for the Tamron and B&H are closing shop until May 2nd! Any good suggestions on where to go for similar price and service??
BuyDig don't have the lens for the EOS, only for some of the other camera mounts..
I would almost go for AbesOfMaine but they don't have the semi-hard case or Hoya filters that I'd like to bundle in to the order...

[markubig]

have you tried www.adorama.com? or www.uniquephoto.com (http://www.uniquephoto.com) is a place that I personally buy from here in NJ. I buy from their showroom, so I don't know how their online service is, but i would imagine it would be OK. They've match B&Hs prices when I asked them to.

The tamron is a good choice. it's very sharp. Look at my gallery . . . most of my shots were taken with my Tamron 28-75 and old Drebel.

Good luck!

[adam351]

Thanks Mark, adorama was out of stock but uniquephoto carried the lens and the other bits and pieces I was also after. Can't wait to get the lens!
Adam

[ScottE]

It is an omen. You started saying you want a multi-purpose walk around lens. Usually that means a range from wide angle to short telephoto. A lens that starts its zoom range at 28 mm is not wide angle on a 20D where it is the equivalent of a 45 mm lens on your 35 mm camera.

The 17-85 is the lens that comes closes to wide angle to short telephoto coverage, being similar to a 28-135 on a film camera. It also has the advantages of image stabilization and USM with full time manual focus override. Image stabilization is important if you are shooting hand held in dim light, but need a smaller aperture to get sufficient depth of field. An f/2.8 lens is not a good substitute when you need depth of field. Full time manual focus is important if you assign autofocus to the * button and get used to touching up focus manually.

My personal walk around kit is a small camera bag with a 20D and two lenses. A 28-135 IS and a 17-40, but I am in the process of replacing the 17-40 with a 10-22 for that purpose. I find it more comfortable and more secure to carry the camera in a small camera bag than to have it dangling around my neck when walking around.

Scott

[Citizensmith]

I think the big deal with walkaround lenses is how many you are willing to carry. If you only want to bring one lens then I'd say the 17-85 was the only choice. I loved the 28-105 on my Elan 7e, but found the 28-X to be much to limiting on a DSLR. Swapped to the 24-85 and didn't even like that. Again, great lens but once you put a 24-X on a DSLR it just isn't wide enough. I think the Tamron 28-75 will be a good choice so long as you realise you'll probably be carrying your wide angle all the time as well.

For me I carry a 17-40 and 85 1.8. The 17-40 is the general purpose lens and I swap to the 85 when I'm doing portraits or need a bit more range. I have no problem carrying two lenses as they fit in a nice small bag (crumpler budgie smuggler) and the optics of both are great. Bigger glass can stay home until I really need it.

[adam351]

I think I have come to the conclusion you can't have it all all the time. I know the 28-75 is by no means wide enough to be the only lens at hand and I accept that and will start keeping the 19-35 handy. When I feel the finances are right I think I will likely get a wider super-wide zoom, like a 10-22 and sell the 19-35.
I am looking forward to the 28-75, alot due its reputation for its quality. We'll see how it goes.