| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/07/2005 11:47:08 AM · #1 |
I'm planning to buy an all-purpose lens for my canon SRL (EOS 20D).
Which lens would you recomend to be better?
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
(without image stabilizer, more range)
or
Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
(with image stabilizer, less range)
thanks !
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:04:33 PM · #2 |
| Personally, I'd go for the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS. Neither of the two lenses you mentioned will give you a decent wide angle. The 17-85 is basically the digital version of the 28-135 IS, which many people use as a general "walk-around" lens. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:10:55 PM · #3 |
Keep in mind that 28mm is roughly a "normal" lens for the 20D. I have the 28-135 and I do like it, but had one been available at the time, I would have definitely opted for the 17-85. Unfortunately, the 10D will not accept EF-S lenses.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 12:15:09 PM · #4 |
Out of your two choices, I'd pick the 28-135IS, I have it and it is a nice lens. Cheaper but about the same is the 28-105 f3.5. I have not heard of anything good about the Canon 28-200. Popular Photography has reviewed the lens and they didn't think it was so hot either.
If you are inclined in the megazoom lens, I'd consider the Tamron 28-300 XR Di, Tokina 24-200, and also the new Sigma's 28-300.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 03:15:14 PM · #5 |
Or look at the Sigma 24-135 f2.8 - 4.5.
I have heard quite a few good reports about this lens, and f2.8 allows a lot of light in.
Alternatively is the 18-125 f3.5 - 5.6 where you have the advantage of wide angle, and moderate tele.
Price is also pretty good on both of them.
Edit: Typo
Message edited by author 2005-02-07 15:15:50. |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 03:24:11 PM · #6 |
I have the Canon 28 - 135 IS lens and really like it a lot. It takes very sharp clear pictures in the whole range of zoom. It also takes very nice close up shots. The Image Stabilization is nice, you can take pictures at a much lower shutter speed than you can without it.
I've read that you don't need the stabilization with lens that have a larger aperture like 2.8 - however, with that large aperture on an SLR you have such a narrow depth of field - I like my pictures to have more in focus than the really large apertures give.
All in all, I'm really happy with how the 28-135 IS performs. I very rarely take it off my camera! |
|
|
|
02/07/2005 03:25:31 PM · #7 |
I have both the Canon 28-135 IS and the 17-40L. They are both great all around lenses. I have heard the 17-85 IS is not that sharp.
|
|
|
|
02/07/2005 03:49:12 PM · #8 |
I have the 28-135 and the 17-40. The 17-40 is now my 'default' lens. If you think of it as a 27-64mm effective lens (after the 1.6 multiplier), it really is a good range, especially in tight areas that don't allow you to back up to frame the shot.
Where the 17-40mm does not excel would be things like candids, where I think a 28-135 would serve pretty well for that. I have no technical issues with the 28-135, it performs very well. I just don't find myself using it much anymore.
Message edited by author 2005-02-07 15:49:39. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/22/2025 04:55:28 AM EDT.
