Canon EF 28-135 IS USM or Sigma 18-200 DC OS or what?

I know this question is like asking a room full of Rolls-Royce owners to help me choose a Toyota - because you get what you pay for - but

can anyone give me their experiences with either or both of these lenses, keeping in mind that comparing them to a Canon 24-105 f4/L IS

USM is not helpful as I can't afford that - yet!

 

I have a 400D, the 18-55 kit lens and a Sigma 70-300 4-5-6 AP0 DG and I'm really wanting a walk-around lens that will stop me having to

keep switching. I'm interested to know how the IS / OS would perform if I want to take indoor photos in low-ish lighting. I'm aware that IQ

often suffers at extreme focal ranges so I was thinking that the Canon might be better. Oh, I don't know...

 

If anyone can recommend a different lens then I'm all ears. There are a few others that I've not really read about yet: Canon 28-105 II USM

or even the AF Tamron 18-250 or 24-135... decisions, decisions.

 

Thanks in advance.

<p>

Canon has a new <a

href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=17518">Canon 18-200

IS EF-S</a> lens coming that should provide some competition for the sigma 18-200. I don't think its actually

available for sale quite yet though.

</p>

 

<p>I have the 28-135 IS and use it a lot in my lens selection. It has USM so it focuses silently and fast. My big

gripe with it is that 28mm isnt wide on a 1.6x crop camera. Its equivalent to almost a 50mm lens on a full-frame

35mm. I have the 10-22, 18-55kit, 28-135, 70-300 is. If i can only take 1 lens, i take the 28-135 and make do

with zooming out with my feet.

</p>

The 28-135 IS on your camera would give a view equal to a 45 - 216 on a 35mm format camera. You said you wanted to take indoor shots in low light. The 28-135 is not really fast enough (f3.5) nor do I find it wide enough for most indoor shots. The IS is significant, and is worth about 2 stops, so with practice you may be able to hand hold at 1/10th of a second, but you will still have to contend with subject motion blur.

 

I use the 28-135 IS on my 10D quite often, but I recently acquired a 17-40 L f4. Now that lens is on the camera most of the time. (I don't want to invest in EF-S lens because they won't work on a 10D anyway.)

 

Have you looked at the Canon 18-200 EF-S IS or the 18-85 EF-S IS?

<p>The 28-135 was my most-used lens for several years on a film body; it offers a useful zoom range from reasonably wide to reasonably long, optical quality that's on the high end of the scale for a consumer zoom (it won't match a prime or a pro zoom, but it's definitely above-average for a consumer zoom), build quality which is again on the high end of the consumer scale (and again below what you'd get from a pro zoom), quick and quiet AF, and the magic of IS. When I went digital with a 1.6-crop body, it became much less useful, due to the fact that it becomes a normal-to-tele zoom with essentially no wide coverage. I had to get a wider zoom to pair with it, whereas I used to be able to use it as my only lens if I needed to pack as small a camera kit as possible. So I can't recommend it to you given that you specifically asked for a walkabout lens that will prevent you from having to swap lenses.</p>

 

<p>As you suspect, a hyperzoom with a zoom ratio in excess of 10x is a compromise. Well, any lens is a compromise, zoom lenses more than primes, and the bigger the zoom range, the bigger the compromise. You're best off avoiding hyperzooms if you can; aim to get a lens kit that keeps the frequency of lens changes down to a reasonable level, rather than trying to get a single jack-of-all-trades lens.</p>

 

<p>Canon's 17-85 is worth considering. It is essentially the 1.6-crop equivalent of what the 28-135 is on a film body: virtually identical zoom range, very similar speed, similar AF, similar build quality, similar optical quality, and it has IS (and, in fact, a newer and somewhat better version of IS than what's in the 28-135). As with the 28-135, it ain't L quality, but then again, it ain't L priced, either (so while you can't afford the 24-105, you may well be able to afford the 17-85).</p>

I have the EF 24-105L IS which I use on a 5D, and the Sigma 18-200 OS which I use on a 30D. I have never used the 28-135 IS , but for my purposes it would not really be wide enough on a 1.6x crop 400D. The Sigma 18-200 OS, while it is a "hyperzoom", is really quite good for the price range. The following link is to some high resolution images I have posted for this lens, along with some comments reflecting my thoughts on it.

 

http://www.pbase.com/lmwalker/sigma_hires

If you really want a large zoom range, I`d also suggest the new canon 18 200, or match your 70 300 with a sigma 17 70 :)

I used to own the 28-135 IS. On a 1.6 crop camera it really performs as a short to medium tele such as a 70-200

zoom, with a little bit more at the short end. The IS is useful but it is not really a low light lens. For static interiors it

was not wide enough and for people type subject matter the shutter speeds can drop low enought that subject

movement is a problem - it is an f4+ lens for much of its range.

 

I find IS more useful for sharpening up photos at around or a bit below 1/focal length shutter speeds and for

increasing depth of field in handheld shots than for truly low light applications.

 

My suggestion would be to upgrade you 18-55 kit lens to the new IS version, which supposedly has better optics as

well as IS or wait to see how the new Canon 18-200 IS gets reviewed. Another option is a fast prime such as the 28

f1.8 USM, but it all really depends on what your interestes are.

I have the Canon 28-135 and initially used it with the kit lens on my then 300D. I found it a useful telephoto

but not wide enough for me as a general walk-around. Since then I sold the 300D and bought a 400D and later a 40D

 

I wanted a useful walk-around for my 400D which I now use as a light travel camera. I considered the Sigma

18-200 DC OS but wasn't convinced of its optical performance so I settled on a second hand Canon EF-S 17-85 IS.

I use it exclusively on my 400D and have found it to be a better performer than a lot of others would tell you,

even compared to the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It has a useful range, that extra 30mm above the kit lens works

well. The new Canon 18-200 IS might be worth a look but I'm not yet convinced about the compromises involved

with hyperzooms.

 

BTW the Canon 17-85 has ring USM and a non-rotating front element which I find useful. I think the lens is

expensive new but can be bought used for a reasonable price. Good luck with your decision!

 

Cheers, Bob

I have the non-OS version and my experiences mirror Mike's. Follow the link and see whether the results are good enough for you.

 

To be honest, I have bought other lenses after this, one for low light and a middle/long zoom for perfect IQ at the long end. Plus I'm saving for a better short zoom.

 

However when I want to be all round versatile with no fuss I still bring the Sigma.

 

When shooting really low fuss I only bring the lowlight.

 

Still, I have no regrets about buying the Sigma with my camera, it helped me rediscover photography as a hobby.

 

Regards, Matthijs.

I can't comment on the Sigma 18-200 since I've never used it, but I just traded in my EF 28-135 for an EF-S 17-85. Came across one refurbished at Adorama for a good price. I found that I'd really been missing the 17-28 focal range on my XT/350D especially indoors, and as someone else mentioned the long end is like 135 on a full-frame camera so it still works for me outside, too. The IS is also slightly better. I've also tried the Tamron 24-135 and while the quality was good, it doesn't have IS and wasn't wide enough either, so I returned it. Hope this helps--good luck with your purchase.

Thank you all so much for your responses. It gives me plenty to think about.

 

The reason I have been thinking about the 28-135 is that it seems to have the most useful focal range. My 400D is my

only D-SLR body so I cannot compare each lens between my 1.6 cropped sensor and full frame. I can only go by the

focal length written on my lenses and compare like for like. Therefore, when I set the focal length to around 28mm on my

kit lens, to see what the 28-135 range would give me, it looks fairly wide to me, i.e you can quite easily get the dining

table and group of dinner guests in the shot from a few feet away. That's fine for me. I'm sure I'd be blown away with

how wide 17mm is on a full frame sensor, but I'm not in that situation. So to say that 28mm's equivalent on a full frame

is about 50mm, then... whatever, I have no basis for comparison. Still useful to know for the future though ;-)

 

I will definitely check out some of the suggested lenses first though, especially since the general consensus is that the

28-135, even with IS, might not be that great indoors.

 

Many thanks

Didn't know if I should start a new thread, but anyway...

 

Based on the great help above I've narrowed my choice down to the Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM and my new

discovery, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II. Reviews look good for this lens.

 

Having decided that I want a lens for good low light photography I think these are the two examples I can afford. So,

what do we reckon here, f4 with IS or f2.8 without? That's probably a huge generalisation but since I don't own a lens

with IS or anything faster than f3.5 (on my kit lens) I'm wondering which would be better for me. Would I notice a huge

difference between f3.5 and f2.8 in low light? Any feedback would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

Your kit-lens is just f/3.5 at the beginning focal range, increasing a lot, whereas the f/2.8 is constant over the whole range.

 

The advantage of f/2.8 over IS is that you can use faster shutter times, which is better for freezing subject movement (which is not corrected with IS). Constant aperture also makes you more flexible compared to the variable aperture of 4-5.6...

 

The Tamron also has better IQ than the Canon lens, according to several website. Only real advantage of the 17-85 is the longer reach at the tele-end.

Kasper, many thanks for your comments.

 

I'm aware of the advantages of a constant aperture but I want to find a good lens for taking no flash photos indoors, or

out in the forest, etc so let's say at wide angle, how would f/2.8 compare to my kit lens of f/3.5? I know the kit lens only

offers f/3.5 until maybe 24mm or so but would I be better even with a much faster lens, such as a prime Canon 28mm f/1.8 U?

 

I know the trade-off would be no zoom but the Tamron would basically replace my kit lens so I want to make sure that the

money I spend extends my photographic possibilities as much as possible, which is why the Canon 17-85mm might be

more useful. Decisions, decisions...