Need a new lens for about $300

I've read the FAQs above, as well as the Top 10 Newbie Lenses post, and I've narrowed down my selection to a couple choices.

I've been shooting only with the nifty fifty, but I would like a "walkaround" lens. Most of my shooting is done outdoors. I am not a professional by any stretch, nor do I have professional aspirations. Accordingly, I've set my price range at $300 or so for this new lens. I don't have a problem buying used.

Based on what I've seen, there are two choices for me here:

1) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

2) Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 DC Macro

slightly at the higher end of the spectrum is the Tamron 28-70mm, pricewise.

Given my budget, which of the above should I grab? Any others that I should look at for the same price?

Any particular reason you don't have a EF-S 18-55 IS? It is frequently packed with Rebel camera bodies, but I guess it is possible you bought a body only camera. Anyways, I'd recommend that since it is so affordable. About $100 used/refurbished.

Purchased the body used and added the 50mm. I've read quite a bit of criticism of the kit lens that has steered me away from it.

With regards to quality, I shoot mostly for art's sake, which is to say that I'm not just shooting my nephews birthday party and stuff like that. I'm a big fan of architecture and landscapes, if that helps at all.

I've been putting together a portfolio and really enjoy it, but it is a just a hobby (hence the $300 price goal).

Well, personally, I would save up a few more dineros and purchase a Tamron 17-50. 17 will get you decently wide for a crop body. It is an excellent lens. Are you afraid of purchasing use? I hope not.

Sigma 17-70 is definitely better than the 28-135.

Yep - go with 17-50 or 28-75 depending on your shooting. Both are excellent lenses and will do much better than 17-70 or 28-135. Tamron has a constant f/2.8 aperture good for indoor low light performance. It's not as fast focusing as the 28-135, but I love everything else about them.

Ide get the 17-50 Tamron.

If most of your shooting is outside in a good light, get the new kit lens - by all accounts it's way better than the old non-IS version that sucked eggs. Canon didn't just add IS, they've improved IQ as well. Or so the consensus seems to be. It's only $100 or so and you can hold off buying the more expensive lens until you know what you need.

Otherwise, I'd get a used non-VC Tamron 17-50 /2.8, they seem to be going at around $330-350. An excellent walkaround lens, one of the best values for the money.

mw03 wrote in post #10046959
Purchased the body used and added the 50mm. I've read quite a bit of criticism of the kit lens that has steered me away from it.

Don't confuse the 18-55 with the 18-55 IS. The first is really a lens of last resort - marginally better than none at all; the second is fantastic value.

Admitting a bias against Sigma, I'd say your options were either the 18-55 IS or the Tamron 17-50/2.8, depending on whether you consider IS or f/2.8 to be more important for your purposes.

28-135 is not wide enough. Optically not the best out there either. If it was me, I'd go with the 17-70mm it's a pretty versatile lens with good optics to boot.

i think the 28-135mm makes a great outdoor walk around....but many won't think it's wide enough...it's too bad you didn't start with the kit, cause then you could narrow down how wide you really need

I'd suggest you pick up the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS. You can easily pick up both new or nearly new for $300 combined.

+1 for the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS

Also consider that the EF 28-135 offers USM...

For the money its a good lens I feel.

halitime wrote in post #10048388
+1 for the 18-55 IS and the 55-250 IS

+ another one. You could get both more or less within your budget and you'd have a terrific kit to get you started.