Hello,

Hello,

I have a 20D and the Canon 28-135IS lens. I have a trip to Asia coming up for a month and I am interested in picking up a couple of lenses for the trip. I mainly like to shoot bright outdoors stuff but on this trip, since there will be family visits, there will be lots of indoor, semi low-light pics.

I looked at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that I was impressed with. I am thinking about the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 as well as the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Undecided/unsure about these.

I do know that I don't want to lay out a bulk of the money on the L glass. I want something that is versitile and decent quality. I know the L lenses are great and but I want to get a couple of lenses with this budget.

Any opinions and suggestions would be great.

Thanks

Sell the 28-135 for $300 and buy a new 24-105mm is for about $850-900 off Craigs list from someone who just bought one bundled with a 5D and wants to make a quick $200 profit.

There is a world of difference in quality.

or

If you look carefully, you may be able to find a Canon 70-300mm IS. I just picked up one locally for $300. These are sharp and very good for a consumer lens. The IS is really handy at 300mm.

For indoors pickup a 50mm f/1.8 they are cheap and suprisingly good.

I choose the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS for my 30D after owning the Tamron 17-50 for a short period of time. The 17-55 is really nice -check out the user reviews.

-Chris

Ahh... I have also worked with the 24-105 which I also highly recommend if you don't need the 17mm range.

-Chris

Thanks.. Was kind of hoping to avoid dropping $1k on a single lens. I'll look on Craigs list to see if there are any deals.. How about on the 70-200 f/2.8? Any comments on either the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 or the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8?

Thanks everyone..

If you go the 70-200 get IS.




Oh and if you can pull this off, hear me out, sell the 20d and get a d60 with the nikon 18-200. You will not regret this if you're a tourist.

If you aren't shoot sports, Tamron is great lens. Lighter than the Canon ,70-200 2.8, has shorter focusing distance .

Shooting sports would be less than 1% usage. I know the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS is a great lens. Just can't afford to drop all I have on one lens. I want to but I am looking for some options to have around.. I forgot to mention that I do have the 50mm 1.8 and that is a good lens...

Thanks

I looked seriously at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and brand new is a fantastic value. The colour was not as vivid as the Canon I ended up buying, but the sharpness was fine.

If you do end up going Sigma, be aware there are several variants and quality control appears to vary widely.

If you want a 70-200 find an older version of the sigma as these are meant to be better and have less QC problems.
I have the 70-300 is and would recomend it if you want a quality but light weight long walk around.

How about a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Canon 55-250 IS combo. Inexpensive and should be a nice setup with minimal weight on your 20D.

Thanks everyone. After the advice here, I stopped by a local camera store and I after spending some time with the various lenses, I am going to likely pick up the Canon 70-200 F/4L IS and the 17-40 F/4L. I also looked at the 24-105 but I think these 2 make sense for me. I will go ahead and post my 28-135 up for sale.

These 2 combined with the 50 F/1.4 I have, I believe gives me some good options.


Oh and I have no interest in switching to Nikon as suggested above.

Thanks