Canon Walkabout Lens Choice

bigfub

bigfub

Messages
594
Name
Stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
I can't afford L glass at the moment and probably won't be able to for a while but I'm trying to fill the gap between the nifty fifty & 75-300 lenses that I kept after selling my old 300D.

Now I have narrowed my choices down to two but am I looking at the right lenses for general purpose use and which would be better suited for me?

1) Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
or
2) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Thanks in advance,
Stuart
 
Well if its any consolation I'm getting the 28-135. On a crop body, 135 is medium telephoto, and 28 is medium wide. It's a wider range than a lot of compacts offer, and people seem to get on just fine with them.
 
The EF 28-135 is a lovely lens as is the 17-85! The aperture ranges on both those are quite similar so I think it only really comes down to are you planning on shooting any wide angle stuff and if so then the 17-85 is your job. If you shoot more at a longer focal length then the 28-135 will be your job.

As trencheel303 said, 135mm is a practically telephoto on a crop sensor!
 
How about the new 15-85 [?more than you were planning on spending] or 18-135 IS? [£360 at Warehouse Express currently]
 
I have the 28-135 lens and it is on my camera all the time unless doing something specific.
Very good picture quality and seems to do everything you can ask of it as a walkabout lens.

Spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
I have the 28-135 lens and it is on my camera all the time unless doing something specific.
Very good picture quality and seems to do everything you can ask of it as a walkabout lens.

Spike
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I am thinking, and is why I compared it to the range of 'most' compact cameras, which people don't seem to complain about. If I wanted to get a shot of something really wide, or was going on my favourite urbex, I'd slap on the Sigma 10-20, but as a walkabout lens I'd say the 28-135 offers a fantastic range. The 24-105L is probably the next best bet, but you lose a bit on the tele and and also a lot more out of your bank...
 
Another vote for the new 18-135 IS. Sharp, and great colour reproduction and has the best IS I have ever used! Take no notice of the DPreview article, I really love this lens!
 
I used to use the 17-85 you've mentioned but have given that to my wife and treated myself to the 24-105 F4 L as my walkabout lens now. I found the 17-85 was always a bit short for me but then i photograph "things" as opposed to scenery :)
 
As a walkabout it really needs to be things & scenery (just to be awkward). Would love the 24-105L or the new 15-85 are going to be outside my budget. Really looking 2nd hand, so on forums & ebay basically ;)
 
trencheel303 said:
Well if its any consolation I'm getting the 28-135. On a crop body, 135 is medium telephoto, and 28 is medium wide. It's a wider range than a lot of compacts offer, and people seem to get on just fine with them.
Click to expand...

When di a 28 on a crop (x1.6 makes it 45) become medium wide??!!

the 28 - 135 is a reasonable lens but not approaching wide on a crop body.
 
Well it's hardly telephoto either. many compacts only go down to 35 and that is considered 'wide'.
 
Another shout on the newer 18-135 IS, the 28-135 is not a bad lens but if i remember correctly was never that sharp or too hot on the contrast, granted fixable in post..

18-135 IS, my vote.
 
The 28-135 lens is a very popular lens so if you bought one second hand on ebay or where ever then IF you did not like it or it does not do what you want it to in a lens then you could always sell it again and sure get your money back.

It all depends on what you are going to be shooting, whilst walking about, If you walk about in the hills and have lots of scenery and nothing else then a wider lens would be probably better for you.

Go on just buy one you know you want too.

Spike
 
It all comes down to what you shoot. Personally I don't really use anything past 50mm when I'm walking around, so for me the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 was the perfect call. If you really need that extra length, the Sigma 17-70 is held in very high regard! Sorry for throwing another 2 options into the mix!

If you're dead set on one of those two lenses I'd say the 17-85, as I couldn't do without the wider stuff, but if you can, go for the other! :thumbs:
 
Seeing as your looking on ebay, the ones that are being sold new for around £235 ish are sold in white boxes,some are refurbished also, a quick email to the seller will confirm this, all this means is that they where once part of a kit to a camera. no difference in the quality or anything else for that matter.

spike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top