<p>EF system is not really the most populated one in my gear, so I only got two third part zooms with my EOS500 and 1000, and recently my EOS1100D kit Zoom.</p>
<p>The worst was the Tokina AF 28-70 2,8-5,6 macro, that I only kept and use because of its close focus ability, until I got my 1100D and the 18-55 DC III, then I got rid of it very fast. It is one candidate for the ugliest EF lens ever, and among all systems I had lenses in, it may be the worst of all, only little challenged by a Makinon M42 80-200 slide-zoom that was not a gem either.</p>
<p>The one that impresses me quite is the other zoom I got with my EOS500, the Tamron AF 28-200 3,8-5,6 Aspherical (71DE), the first EF lens in the world with such a zoom span (even before Canon did one), and maybe not the worst from these twenty years or so on. While it shows its age in the digital world, it is still quite capable, mainly outside, because of its minimal focussing at 2,1m (at 28mm, longer at 200), but focus speed is up to DC current lenses, if I can tell from the 18-55 DCIII I have. It helped me make many candid shots over the years.</p>
<p>I'm planning on buying a second-hand 50 1.8 MKII from a friend, and also replace both the 28-200 and the 18-55 at the same time, with IS optics, and this topic is quite instructive. I'm wondering if i can give up full frame ability, if I should take narrower range zoom, or sacrifice little quality for a real all-rounder.</p>
<p>So the choice is between 15-85, 18-135, 28-135, and 18-200. I think the 28mm would be too long, but since I had a 20mm for film, I may end up getting a real wideangle later anyway. For the tele part, I lived well with the 200mm in my film years, but I got used to it on the crop sensor lately. Is the loss of quality is worth the largest zoom span? Will it be better, or at least on par with the 18-55 IS II and the Tamron 28-200 on their respective ranges?</p>
<p>I once passed by a 35-80 PZ and EOS300n for 5€ as-is at a photo trade convention. Maybe I should have thought twice?</p><div></div>
