Need Advice On Some Lenses

Hi!

I have a Canon Rebel XTI. It came with the kit lens 18-55 no IS and the EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM. Most likely will get rid of that for sure.

I mostly shoot landscapes. Like ocean, waves, beach and rocks, sunsets and vineyards.

I also shoot some sports. Like surfing and some kids sports like soccer.

I can not afford a L.

I want the IS because I am a bit shaky.

I have been reading about the following.

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

One of the 2 above would pretty much replace my kit lens. I know the 2 above are very similar.

I have also been looking at the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM fo my zoom for sports and other stuff.

The last one I have thought about is the 50 f/1.4 or 1.8

Any suggestions would be great. Also if you can think of a different lens I may want to use for the money please say so.

Thank You

For budget lenses, I've heard good things about the new 18-55mm IS lens that comes with XS and XSi kits, also have heard good things about the new 50-250mm IS lens - do some research, but those could be very good options on a budget and seeking IS.

Thank You for the reply. I will look at those. I guess I like the focal range on the 28-135.

I also should have mentioned that I also take some night stuff like city lights on the water etc.

Thank You

The 70-300 is no better than the 75-300. Only lens I've ever sold because I didn't like it.

To shoot surfing, you are going to need something really long. 300 mm at a minimum. I know you said you can't afford it, but maybe you should consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. Great quality. Later, you can add a 1.4X to it to get to 280 mm. That's what I use for shooting stiff at a distance. (300 mm f/2.8 L IS is too big to tote while traveling)

Also I know the 17-85 is a EF-S lens and the 28-135 is a EF lens. What is the difference between EF-S and EF and what does it stand for?

Thank You

MarKap77 wrote in post #6865877
The 70-300 is no better than the 75-300. Only lens I've ever sold because I didn't like it.

To shoot surfing, you are going to need something really long. 300 mm at a minimum. I know you said you can't afford it, but maybe you should consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. Great quality. Later, you can add a 1.4X to it to get to 280 mm. That's what I use for shooting stiff at a distance. (300 mm f/2.8 L IS is too big to tote while traveling)

Thank You for the reply. I would love the 70-200 f/4 IS. Maybe I can pull that off someday.

As far as getting close for surfing right now I am shooting off the pier not the beach. So I can get a bit closer. I also use a tripod so maybe I can look at the 70-200 non IS if I use a tripod all the time?

Thank You

jcsurfn wrote in post #6865887
Also I know the 17-85 is a EF-S lens and the 28-135 is a EF lens. What is the difference between EF-S and EF and what does it stand for?

The EF-S lenses can only be used on crop-body cameras (xxD and xxxD) and not on the full frame (1D, 5D) cameras. EF lenses can be used on any Canon body.

Because you mentioned you shoot mainly landscapes, may I suggest you get a Ultra Wide Angle (Sigma 10-20 or Canon 10-22)

Browse through this thread and see why a Wide Angle is great for landscapes.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=312255

Sure Image Stabilization (IS) is nice, but the 28-135 is neither good for sports or wide enough for landscapes (especially on a cropped cramera like your XTi)

The 28-135 is a good consumer lens. Image quality isn't up to L standards, but neither is the price. This comes as a kit with the 40D, so many are often available in like-new condition on the secondary market at significant discounts. Since you like to shoot landscapes, I have to say it pairs very well with the EF-S 10-22 ultrawide Canon makes. Those two give you a very useful focal range, particularly for the types of shots you want. I've been very happy with that combo on my XTi (which also includes a non-IS version of the maligned 75-300. Oh, for a 70-200 L...).

I've heard good things about the 18-55 IS lens, but I've no direct experience with it.

Thank You all for the reply. I would really like to get a L. So maybe I should look into the 70-200 f/4 L non IS as the IS is way to much for me right now any thoughts?

Thank You

MarKap77 wrote in post #6865877
The 70-300 is no better than the 75-300. Only lens I've ever sold because I didn't like it.

I suspect your experience with the 70-300 was unusual as most people find it very much better than any of the 75-300s.

OP:
Your cheapest reasonably decent lenses are the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS.

From what you've written I don't see where the 50/1.4 would fit in.
You might be better applying the funds toward a 10-20/22 for broad landscape work, or getting an 85/1.8 for sports or a 4340EX flash.

xarqi wrote in post #6874921
I suspect your experience with the 70-300 was unusual as most people find it very much better than any of the 75-300s.

OP:
Your cheapest reasonably decent lenses are the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS.

From what you've written I don't see where the 50/1.4 would fit in.
You might be better applying the funds toward a 10-20/22 for broad landscape work, or getting an 85/1.8 for sports or a 4340EX flash.

Thank You for the reply. We seem to be hitting all the same post tonight. I just saw you post something after me a min. ago.

Anyways I only mentioned the

EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

as a replacement for my kit lens 18-55 non IS. I can not get out and shoot right now because I dislocated some bones in my foot. So I have been doing some reading on here and other places. Which is good. I am still new with the DSLR just got it in June. I shot film in the 90s. not to seriously but got some decent stuff. I guess I might have lens fever. trying to get some opinions on some that i thought I might be interested in so I can then shop around and take my time.

Anyways Thank You for you input. It is greatly appreciated.

Thank You

Someone mentioned the 55-250 IS, and I'd like to second that suggestion. It gives great IQ for the price, and the range makes it a nice "walkabout" lens too. It performs well as a sports lens, provided the light is good. I had this lens and the 70-300 for a while, and eventually sold the 70-300 because I preferred pretty much everything about the 55-250. It's certainly worth considering. During our family vacation this year (at the beach), it stayed on the camera 90% of the time and performed really well. I got some great surf/kids playing/beach wildlife/scenic/family portrait shots. Although I have a couple of more expensive, better-rated lenses in my bag, this is probably the one I use the most.

jcsurfn wrote in post #6865887
Also I know the 17-85 is a EF-S lens and the 28-135 is a EF lens. What is the difference between EF-S and EF and what does it stand for?

Thank You

JC,

The difference between EF and EF-S lenses is the "S" stands for "short". On all of Canon's full frame sensor cameras, the mirror swing is large enough that the lens elements have to be far enough away so that the mirror doesn't hit the glass. On the Canon APS-C sensor cameras like the Rebel line and the 30/40/50D line, the mirror is smaller and therefore the swing arc shorter. This allows the lens elements to be closer to the image sensor. Canon developed their digital only line of lenses specifically for those cameras. They are designated with the EF-S line to denote that they are in fact EF mount lenses, but will only fit on cameras with the shorter distance between the image sensor and the lens elements.

So does an EF-S lens (for example 17-55 2.8 IS) on an EF-S camera body (40D) give a true 17-55 focal length or do you still have to magnify by 1.6?