walk around lens???

hello I have a 28-135mm is usm as my walk around lens. I think its time to upgrade it??
i dont have a price tag but looking to probally spend in the neighborhood of $650??
Any suggestions

Why do you want to upgrade it? What do you want that this lens doesn't give you. How do you most often use it--for what kinds of photos, in what settings? Without that information, asking for advice is like rolling dice.

I would repost this with more information, in the lens forum. That's where it belongs.

I like my Tamron 18-270 for general use. Not a great choice for low natural light shooting though, since its f/3.5 at the wide end.

paddler4 wrote in post #16518459
Why do you want to upgrade it? What do you want that this lens doesn't give you. How do you most often use it--for what kinds of photos, in what settings? Without that information, asking for advice is like rolling dice.

I would repost this with more information, in the lens forum. That's where it belongs.

I love the lens dont get me wrong but its hockey season again and ive been shooting for my brothers teams i use a 70-200 and the 28-135 at 28mm its fine nice and clear but at 135mm its fuzzy and its at 5.6 theres no set aperture so while it being zoomed its not as sharp as 28mm at f 3.5. i use this lens almost every time i shoot this is my second 1 the first the usm gave out on me so i picked up a new 1 Its just not as sharp as i think it should be..

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16518490
I love the lens dont get me wrong but its hockey season again and ive been shooting for my brothers teams i use a 70-200 and the 28-135 at 28mm its fine nice and clear but at 135mm its fuzzy and its at 5.6 theres no set aperture so while it being zoomed its not as sharp as 28mm at f 3.5. i use this lens almost every time i shoot this is my second 1 the first the usm gave out on me so i picked up a new 1 Its just not as sharp as i think it should be..

For shooting sports, the Tamron is definitely NOT the answer.

archer1960 wrote in post #16518470
I like my Tamron 18-270 for general use. Not a great choice for low natural light shooting though, since its f/3.5 at the wide end.

how is that lens?? someone offered me a trade for my 28-135mm is usm i wasnt informed on the specs of this

Gregg.Siam wrote in post #16518478

joking...what do you shoot? Portraits? need to be Canon, or will you consider other brands?

ahaha i wish both actually id like it to be canon but if there is a good alternative then im open to itt

24-105

archer1960 wrote in post #16518498
For shooting sports, the Tamron is definitely NOT the answer.

i was thinking about a 24-70 or a 24-105 but there expensive

jjaenagle wrote in post #16518529
24-105

do you have 1 ??

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16518502
how is that lens?? someone offered me a trade for my 28-135mm is usm i wasnt informed on the specs of this

It's a pretty good lens for general use. Of course a 15x zoom will never match an equivalent quality shorter-range lens, but for convenience it's tough to beat. I have a bunch of posts in these forums shot with this lens, mostly in the birds section, and a few in the sunrise and sunset sections.

It's probably not quite as sharp as your 28-135, but it goes both wider and longer, so if that's what you need, then it might be a reasonable trade. Don't take my word for it, though; I've never used the 28-135, and I don't know what they cost.

I have the older version which has the stepper motor for AF. The newer PZD version is supposed to focus much faster and quieter than mine does.

OP asks about "Walk Around" but then jumps to "Hockey".

28-135 is the best walk around I ever used.

For sports 70-200 2.8 would do it.

Photos below are from the 28-135. One long, one short.

.

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16518530
i was thinking about a 24-70 or a 24-105 but there expensive

Yes, with the 24-70 being more expensive than the 24-105. I have the 24-105 as my walk around lens and I love it. I don't know what the 24-105 goes for in the US, but here a used one can be bought for ~$650-800. (19,500B-23,800B)

Do you have a crop body or ff? When I had a crop body, I loved the 24-105 as the extra reach was always nice. I tend to shoot the mid to far end more than the wide end.

Giofazio44 wrote in post #16518531
do you have 1 ??

I did have one for a couple years. It wasnt my go to lens cause I liked having a faster aperture so I used my sigma 35 a lot more.

But I know that I could always keep that lens on my camera most of the time when I was traveling and shooting kids. I did have a sigma 70-200 2.8 also, I just didn't need the reach as much as the 35 or the zoom lens.

Now I own just a 24-70 mkII and am hoping that will be my go to lens and won't need others