Hi Everyone,

I've been reading the lens reviews for a while, and figured it time to join up and ask a couple of questions.

Firstly, I'm after a 'walk around' lens that i can stick on the camera when I'm out for a cycle/walk what have you and not wanting to take everything with me. I'm seeing good reviews for the Canon 28-135mm IS USM which looks good (i'll try it this weekend).

The problem comes when you factor in my second question, which is that i have lots of very soft shots with the 75-300 USM III over about 250mm (shown on the lens). I know that part of this could be my eyes, but even when autofocusing i don't think it improves that much.

Since i can't really afford a 70-200mm L F4, this leads me to look at the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS which scores even better than the 28-135 on here.

I was just wondering if a) I should just keep going with the current zoom lens as the 55-250 wouldn't be that much better (get the 28-135 for walk around duties, and save for an L if i cant work round the problem) and b) if i i'd decide to change, i'm guessing the closeness of the two zoom ranges would make buying both the 55-250 and 28-135 a waste of money?

I hope that makes some sense!

Many thanks.
Ed

Please dont put much stock in the reviews as they are so ridiculously biased towards whatever new lens anybody has spent money on. And how do you judge how some random hobby reviewer rates a lens anyway? I think you should post your question in the Canon Gear section as anybody on this forum is going to advice you to rather get a 30 year old manual Minolta lens and change the mount so you can put it on your Canon

ovredal73 wrote:
Please dont put much stock in the reviews as they are so ridiculously biased towards whatever new lens anybody has spent money on. And how do you judge how some random hobby reviewer rates a lens anyway? I think you should post your question in the Canon Gear section as anybody on this forum is going to advice you to rather get a 30 year old manual Minolta lens and change the mount so you can put it on your Canon

In this case a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 makes more sense ;-)

Thanks for the tip, I'll repost.

I've got an old 'RMC Tokina 80-200mm F4' which fits my camera. would that be classic enough or does it need to be modded for the Kudos?

I had the 70-300 and sold it because it did not cut it at all. Very soft lens. The 28-135 IS I still keep as it is a great walk about lens and with the IS can help. Images are pretty good and I have also used it on a full frame without any problem.

Not the best but a nice lens and a little lighter than the "L" alternative.

The 55-250 IS lens seems to get good reviews for the price most everywhere I have seen, and they go for around $200+ on the B&S here.

Brit-007 wrote:
I had the 70-300 and sold it because it did not cut it at all. Very soft lens.

Are you talking about the 70-300 IS? I thought that one was supposed to come "reasonably" close to the 70-200/4 L in terms of optical quality (when stopped down a bit I suppose).

I recently purchased a Canon 70-200 F4L, and i can firmly state, it is worth every single penny. I considered the 70-300 and 75-300 in the past, but passed on them due to their trombone construction.

At $600-700USD, the 70-200 F4L is easily the best (new) lens for the money.

18-55 IS + 50/1.8 + 55-250 IS. Cheap, light, good IQ, good range, light weight, great value for money.

Welcome to FM.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

thanks guys.

I'm hoping to be over in florida in september (am Scotland based) and the lenses are so much cheaper over there so there may have to be a spending spree!

currently just stopping down the 75-300mm and getting reasonable pictures, but its not ideal.