Canon 28-135 or 18-135?

[simonm8]

Hi,

( those that may have seen my posts earlier regarding 50d, i didn't manage to get there in time. So back to drawing board again!
)

Looking for a bit of help really. Hopefully getting my dslr next week.. possibly going to be a 550d, now im stuck on if to go for

1) new 550d with kit EF-S 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 IS - £580
2) new 550d, S/H EF 28-135mm f3.5-f/5.6 IS USM - £620
3) new 550d, S/H 18-135MM LENS F3.5-5.6 - £610

All are coming out roughly same price ( the 2 x s/h lens, can get from someone in work, going over to nikon)

Just looking for pros cons of each lens, and would be better for the beginner etc
Thanks

 

[sam_cat]

I would say the 28-135 is the better of those 3 lenses. I owned one for a while and its a nice bit of kit.

Sam

 

[menthel]

28mm will be be 50mm equivalent on the 550d, I would recommend something much wider and from your suggestions the 18-135.

 

[travellingcello]

I wouldn't buy either if i were you - buy a body only and look for some better quality lenses.

Neither lens you mentioned are particularly bad, but I think that as soon as you start getting into photography you will upgrade your lens anyway, and you will lose money doing that most likely.

I would go for 18-135 if it has to be between the two you mentioned.

 

[simonm8]

I wouldn't buy either if i were you - buy a body only and look for some better quality lenses.

Neither lens you mentioned are particularly bad, but I think that as soon as you start getting into photography you will upgrade your lens anyway, and you will lose money doing that most likely.

Is there any particular lens you have in mind as a good starter?.. like you say dont wanna lose / waste money etc

Thanks for the replys so far

 

[dinners]

From those choices I would say the 28-135 but 28 on a crop body isnt very wide.

What sort of things are you going to be photographing ? - For landscapes etc the 18-135 might be the better option.

As others have said there are other options but a lot depends on your budget and how fast the lens needs to be for what you'll be shooting.

 

[travellingcello]

Like Phil said, what do you want to photograph?

A good starter lens might be the Canon 15-85, it will do a bit of everything.

If you want cheaper, then go with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS - cheap lenses but good bang/buck. Throw in a 50mm 1.8 and you have a good starter setup. Also don't buy new, I think its a waste of money. Head over to MPB photographic or Aperture UK (I can recommend them whole-heartedly)

You could get a 50 1.8 for about £70, a 55-250 IS for £140, and a 18-55 IS for about £80 I think.

 

[Alan Sandham]

I would say the 28-135 is the better of those 3 lenses. I owned one for a while and its a nice bit of kit.

Sam

I agree, I had the 28-135 and upgraded to the new 18-135 and was disappointed. The latest ones arent always the best!

 

[MacPingu]

I would say the 28-135 is the better of those 3 lenses. I owned one for a while and its a nice bit of kit.

Have to agree with Sam here. As a starter lens you won't go far wrong with this lens and is a pretty good all round walkabout lens until you decide where your photography is going to take you.

Like Phil said, what do you want to photograph?
A good starter lens might be the Canon 15-85, it will do a bit of everything.
If you want cheaper, then go with 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS - cheap lenses but good bang/buck. Throw in a 50mm 1.8 and you have a good starter setup. Also don't buy new, I think its a waste of money. Head over to MPB photographic or Aperture UK (I can recommend them whole-heartedly)

You could get a 50 1.8 for about £70, a 55-250 IS for £140, and a 18-55 IS for about £80 I think.

........ but this is also very good advice from travellingcello too. And would certainly save you money for when you were ready to move on to some more serious glass. And these lenses mentioned are by no means anything to turn the nose up at. If you browse the photographs on here you will see some stunning images posted by people using these very lenses. Food for thought . . .

I agree, I had the 28-135 and upgraded to the new 18-135 and was disappointed. The latest ones arent always the best!

Couldn't agree more.

 

[simonm8]

Thanks for the replys peeps,

Think i will look to try and get the 550d body, and 28-135, as although not quite long enough for the occasional zoo visit, will be a good all round lens. But will also be looking at MPB, and look to go down the 3 lens route, (i did have the 55-250is for a few weeks before, and did like it)

Thanks for the replys peeps

 

[menthel]

Thanks for the replys peeps,

Think i will look to try and get the 550d body, and 28-135, as although not quite long enough for the occasional zoo visit, will be a good all round lens. But will also be looking at MPB, and look to go down the 3 lens route, (i did have the 55-250is for a few weeks before, and did like it)

Thanks for the replys peeps

Seriously, the 28-135 is a bad choice on a crop. It's just not wide enough. 17-85 or 15-85 would be best, along with the 55-250. The sigma 17-70 is also supposed to be excellent. Get a decent standard zoom now for crop otherwise you will be selling the 28-135 when you realise it's not wide enough.

 

[menthel]

Thanks for the replys peeps,

Think i will look to try and get the 550d body, and 28-135, as although not quite long enough for the occasional zoo visit, will be a good all round lens. But will also be looking at MPB, and look to go down the 3 lens route, (i did have the 55-250is for a few weeks before, and did like it)

Thanks for the replys peeps

Seriously, the 28-135 is a bad choice on a crop. It's just not wide enough. 17-85 or 15-85%

 

[John Doran]

I started out with a Canon 300D with kit lens and shudder at the thought...

I wish I had saved up and bought an L lens and a decent body. At the time 10/20D

You can pick up a decent "older" camera 30/40D for a few hundred quid (£200-300) which is a thousand times better than the 550D. The 24-105 f4 IS L is also a great purchase at £750 ish.

My advice will always be by good glass. I had a 90-300 f4-5.6 USM and this was good for starting out but I now think I wasted money.

I now am the proud owner of a 5D with various L lenses and can only say it is an amazing combination.

 

[travellingcello]

I started out with a Canon 300D with kit lens and shudder at the thought...

I wish I had saved up and bought an L lens and a decent body. At the time 10/20D

You can pick up a decent "older" camera 30/40D for a few hundred quid (£200-300) which is a thousand times better than the 550D. The 24-105 f4 IS L is also a great purchase at £750 ish.

My advice will always be by good glass. I had a 90-300 f4-5.6 USM and this was good for starting out but I now think I wasted money.

I now am the proud owner of a 5D with various L lenses and can only say it is an amazing combination.

Well again 24-105 is not going to be wide enough on a crop sensor - also I think saying a 30/40d is thousand times better than 550D is very misleading....

The 550D has the same sensor as the 7D and the same ISO performance - so it will give you better IQ. The area where 30/40D will perform better is ergonomics and FPS. I would say I prefer better image quality but then I don't shoot sports.

Also I wouldn't recommend the 17-85 based on what people say, and also on my experience of using my fathers - distortion is really bad on the wide end, and CA is terrible as well. In fact depending on which way you look at it you should avoid it at all costs or just buy one, because the market is flooded with 2nd hand 17-85's which go for about £200 ! I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 non-VC for that price-range though, since it performs better in my eyes.

 

[simonm8]

Seriously, the 28-135 is a bad choice on a crop. It's just not wide enough. 17-85 or 15-85 would be best, along with the 55-250. The sigma 17-70 is also supposed to be excellent. Get a decent standard zoom now for crop otherwise you will be selling the 28-135 when you realise it's not wide enough.

Fair point, about not being wide enough, im looking at a 17-85 at the moment, s/h... to be honest didn't even think to look for a sigma version! was to wrapped up looking at canon.. will have a browse now..

 

[menthel]

Fair point, about not being wide enough, im looking at a 17-85 at the moment, s/h... to be honest didn't even think to look for a sigma version! was to wrapped up looking at canon.. will have a browse now..

As pointed out also consider the 17-50 lenses available from tamron and sigma, great lenses for the price too.

 

[CSB]

I posted a link to some sample images taken with the 18-135 in this thread. You may want to read some of the comments in that thread too.

 

[simonm8]

As pointed out also consider the 17-50 lenses available from tamron and sigma, great lenses for the price too.

How do they compare to the kit lens that comes with the 550d? Are that much better or am I, being a beginner and pretty much will be shooting varied subjects rather than 1 or 2 specific areas to start with. Going with the kit and picking up the 55-250 is and nifty fifty for lower light portrait shots of nephew and fishing etc?

Ps thanks for everyone help and comments so far, nice to get friendly helpful advice and food for thought.

 

[menthel]

How do they compare to the kit lens that comes with the 550d? Are that much better or am I, being a beginner and pretty much will be shooting varied subjects rather than 1 or 2 specific areas to start with. Going with the kit and picking up the 55-250 is and nifty fifty for lower light portrait shots of nephew and fishing etc?

Ps thanks for everyone help and comments so far, nice to get friendly helpful advice and food for thought.

They are better but I think, honestly, if you are a complete beginner get the kit and a 55-250 and stop there at present. Get used to the kit and then work out where it is limiting you. Once you have done this come back and tell us and then we can help you choose a lens!

 

[John Doran]

Well again 24-105 is not going to be wide enough on a crop sensor - also I think saying a 30/40d is thousand times better than 550D is very misleading....

The 550D has the same sensor as the 7D and the same ISO performance - so it will give you better IQ. The area where 30/40D will perform better is ergonomics and FPS.

The 550 may have the same sensor as a 7D but the price of a new 550 compared to a second hand 30/40D then these win hands down. Image quality is fine on those cameras and unless you want to print at 20x30" then the sensor megapixel (MP) is not important.

Granted, ISO performance will be better but again this also depends on the glass used on the body.

People seem to get over excited about MP...

A Nikon D2H 2MP camera can print a decent image at about A2 size. The glass on that camera was a Nikon 600mm f4 with a 2x Tele converter. Granted, the sensor has 2 elements to it forming a 4MP camera in essence. But considering these cameras are still being used by some pros, I don't see why an all singing/dancing sensor is that important. Good glass wins.

24mm again is not wide on any crop camera but if you go for a 17mm lens then there will be distortion of some sort. Even on the 17-40 f4 L the barrel distortion is IMO harsh. I've never used the 17-85 so can't comment but I have heard various good & bad things.

Budget and actual use will be the selling points. Whichever camera you go for, I personally recommend having money spent on good glass and this will most certainly provide a good baseline for good images.

 

[odd jim]

I agree, I had the 28-135 and upgraded to the new 18-135 and was disappointed. The latest ones arent always the best!

I preferred the 18-135!

Sharper, better contrast and far better colour rendition. IMO of course.

And better range for a crop.

 

[yaaan]

I recently picked up a secondhand 18-135 based on opinions on here and was pleasantly surprised with the results. Admittedly I've had some pretty budget lenses until now (yes even cheaper than this lens ) so it should be better but I was quite pleased with how sharp the image was.