Hello everyone! I'm new here and this is my first ever post, since I have hopped into the Digital SLR scene.
Anyways I have a Rebel XT and I have outgrown the kit lense.
I have been research for a good walk around lense since I am a fan of general potraits and street photography. However, I'm torn between certain lenses since these are within my price range ($300-400)
-The Tamron 28-70mm has very high praises on the forums (if you get a good copy) Which I am gearing for since the photos look great!
-My friend told me to go for the Canon 28-135mm USM IS lense since they said the IS is good. I have looked into this lense and seems like a standard walk around lense that people favor (except the weight)
Overall I am looking for a very sharp lense that I can walk around with and not having to switch out lenses for a specific shot.
With out knowing what you mean by out growing the kit lens (longer reach, larger apeature, faster autofocus, full time manual focus, sharper) I'll take a stab anyway.
I think that 28mm will not be wide enough on a 1.6 crop. I'm selling my 24 - 85 because I want wider for a walkaround lens so. The sigma 18 - 50 2.8 would be my choice if longer reach isn't your goal but i think it is $500. I have a sigma 18-125 that is my new walk around lens, it is sharp, auto focus is slow and noisy, no full time manual, but nice range. I plan to add a 35 or 28 prime for low light.
The canon 17-85 IS would also be a good choice but $570. Tamron and sigma both have an 18-200 super zoom, but with an 11X zoom i'm not sure how sharp they are.
Staying in your price range the sigma 18-125 might be your best choice if you can live with the shortcomings i mentioned. The canon 24-85 would also be a good choice if 24 is wide enough, it's ring usm, so full time manual, silent, and fast focusing.
If you like general nature and wildlife shooting, I think the 28-135 is a great all-around lens. Pretty good with people as well. Would probably be a good street lens for smaller subjects. If you are into more of the landscape/vista thing, then maybe the 18-50 is a better choice.
These shots were all taken with the 28-135, handheld, no flash.
you want a good all around walkaround that is light, gets shrp pics and costs $400, get the Tamron 18-200 XR Di II... I had that lens and it was awesome. The only reason I sold it was because I needed cash to fund a new lens that I would be using more since the majority of my work is sports and weddings and I dont hvae the luxery of walking around like i use to. Get it, you wont regret it.
sreachard wrote:
With out knowing what you mean by out growing the kit lens (longer reach, larger apeature, faster autofocus, full time manual focus, sharper) I'll take a stab anyway.
I think that 28mm will not be wide enough on a 1.6 crop. I'm selling my 24 - 85 because I want wider for a walkaround lens so. The sigma 18 - 50 2.8 would be my choice if longer reach isn't your goal but i think it is $500. I have a sigma 18-125 that is my new walk around lens, it is sharp, auto focus is slow and noisy, no full time manual, but nice range. I plan to add a 35 or 28 prime for low light.
The canon 17-85 IS would also be a good choice but $570. Tamron and sigma both have an 18-200 super zoom, but with an 11X zoom i'm not sure how sharp they are.
Staying in your price range the sigma 18-125 might be your best choice if you can live with the shortcomings i mentioned. The canon 24-85 would also be a good choice if 24 is wide enough, it's ring usm, so full time manual, silent, and fast focusing.
I dont really need a far telephoto lense. I am looking for more of nice quality shots than anything else.
However, I would like a good wideangle view since I would like to take shots of city scapes.
From my experience the 28-135 focus hunts alot and the pictures were not that sharp. I understand a 24-105 F4 L IS is on the way in a few weeks. If it's true, that would be a fantastic walk around.
I assume you want a light weight zoom with decent range to use outdoors.
Just from my experience I like the Sigma 18-200. Not very good in low light,
but very good otherwise. Other lenses of this type I've used/owned are:
Canon 17-85 decent but expensive
Canon 18-55 fair and cheap
Canon 28-105 good performance and reasonably priced
Tamron 28-75 good performer but limited range
Tamron 24-135 good performer and decent range
Sigma 28-105 not a good experience
I'd like to try the Sigma 18-50, 24-70, Canon 24-70 and 28-135, but haven't had a chance yet.
Most "walk around" lenses won't give you a good wide angle view...at least not on a DSLR.
If you can move into two lenses, one on your camera and one in a pouch on your belt, you might take a look at the Tokina 12-24 (not Canon and not fast, but has a good reputation for the $500 spent. I'm thinking of getting on of these for vacation myself.) and the Canon 28-135 IS. (again, it's not fast but I've had very good luck with this. And the focal range is super.)
Some people have used and like Canon's 17-85 IS as a walk around lens. I've not tried it but it might be worth looking into.
Give us a better idea of what you want to do and why you weren't happy with your kit lens. That will help us to better help you. Me, I found that I needed a faster lens with a maximum 2.8 aperture.
The reason why I wasn't really happy with my kit is the lack of sharpness and it had a very hard time "looking"
I am liking the Tamron 24-135mm - it looks like it has better ratings than the canon 28-135.
Now I am wondering the sharpness of the 28-75 vs the 24-135mm tamron lenses. I dont think I would need the extended range, but it will be good if I need it. If the sharpness is barelly noticeable I would guess the extra range should be good. right?
After hours of reading around I think I'm just going to get a deticated wide angle AF 17-35mm Tamron lense which should be good since the 1.6 crop factor should give me a decent wide angle. The reviewers love how sharp the lense is.
My walk around kit is the EF-s 10 -22, and the 28 - 135 IS...
Between these two lens I use almost nothing else... I have primes that come out when they are needed.. but if I am just running out the door and bringing my little camera bag, itis these two lenses that cme.. If I was just going out with the camera, and carrying nothing else, I would bring the 28 -135 and be perfectly happy... It is just the best lens I have hands down for versatility... of course the 10 - 22 is my favorite lens because I love wide... but that is its only use.
The next lens I want to add on to my set is the 100 - 400 IS, or the 75 - 300 IS... the problem is just the decision over how much weight do I want, and how much $$$ can I afford (which is why I am going with the 75 - 300 if I can get it... it wins both in weight and price... I just will miss the extra reach and with both lenses I will pay with the lack of speed)...
My 28-135 IS is the most flexible lens I own. I don't know why people say it's not sharp. Mine is very sharp. However, there may be inconsistant manufacturing standards that means inconsistant lens quality.
The image below was taken with a 20D. I have a 13x19 print of this and it is very sharp. I compressed the photo below with ImageReady so the quality degraded some.
I just recently purchased a Rebel XT. My boyfriend loaned me 2 of his lenes to give me some glass to learn with. I also have the 50 mm 1:1.8. Out of the 3 lenes the 28-135 IS is my favorite lens. It stays on my camera most of the time. I'm gonna cry when he needs it back.
The 28-135IS (or at least, the copy I have) might as well be made out of plastic. It's sharp-ish. Kinda. I guess on a 300D it might be sharp enough. It seems that yes, there are good copies of that lens around but it's the luck of the draw.
IS is nice, but I believe the 17-85 IS has a newer generation of IS in it and I haven't heard of any sharpness complaints from that lens. Although I have never used a 17-85 IS and cannot comment on its sharpness, I'd suggest that over the 28-135 IS anyday.
The 24-105L IS that's rumored to come out will probably be out of your price range but it sounds exciting
I love my Sigma 18-125mm. It's got a fantastic range, is very sharp when stopped down a smidge at all focal lengths, and is actually acceptable wide open as well. Really, much better optical quality than one would expect in small lens with this range.
I think I'm just going to get a deticated wide angle AF 17-35mm Tamron lense which should be good since the 1.6 crop factor should give me a decent wide angle. The reviewers love how sharp the lense is.