lightest smallest acceptable zoom lens for 300D

[henry_minsky1]

I own the 28-135 IS, and the 50mm/1.8. The 50/1.8 is my benchmark

for the quality of images I want to get.

 

I am tired of lugging the heavy 28-135 around on my relatively light

300D, and am not that attached to the IS capability. I was wondering

what the smallest and lightest zoom lens would be in the 28-100mm

range that has image quality that is acceptable (say equal to or

better than the 28-135). I don't care how cheaply the lens is built,

just that it has respectable performance. It doesn't have to be

particularly fast either, when I use a zoom lens I am generally

shooting outdoors in daylight.

[jbq]

28-105/3.5-4.5 (not the f/4-5.6 variant), 24-85/3.5-4.5.

 

If the 50/1.8 is your benchmark, nothing short of a 28-70/2.8L or 24/70/2.8L will do.

 

If size and weight really matter that much, the 35-80 may be an option. Photodo gave is a similar rating as the 28-105 and 24-85.

[J.W. Wall]

What do you want to shoot?

 

With that in mind, maybe visit your local camera shop and try a few lenses.... E.g., wide angle zooms, the Canon EF 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 might do.

[J.W. Wall]

Oops, you said 28-100mm. Oh, well.

[citizensmith]

The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is pretty much as good as the 28-135. Next after that is the 28-90 f/4-5.6 USM (not the Mk2 version) which gets some good reviews. Then the 35-80 f/4-5.6 USM (only one version with USM, ignore the others) is also OK. The 35-80 is the shortest (65mm compared to 97mm for your 28-135) and lightest (170g compared to 550g for your 28-135). Also, because it doesn't have too huge a range its optics aren't bad either.

 

However, none of these are as good as your 50 f/1.8. If you are looking for a compact zoom your benchmark should be the 28-135. The only way you can get zooms approaching 50 f/1.8 quality is the big 'n heavy L zooms.

[Greg M]

If I were stuck having to use my 18-55 kit lens I don't think I'd be too disappointed. The pictures I've taken with it haven't left much to be desired. At 28-90 it's awfully close to what you want. If you didn't buy the lens with your camera I'd look for one in the$75-$100 used range. I'm sure there are sample variations, but the one I have is very good.<div></div>

[Greg M]

Jagged corners to do re-sizing to fit on this web page. The original full-sized file does not have this problem

[henry_minsky1]

After using the 50/1.8, I find it very difficult to go back to the kit lens. I found that it can give nice results for photos taken up close, but I farther than about 5 feet it seems to get a lot worse.

 

I had the 55-200mm zoom, which was great because it was quite light and had a long reach. It had a little bit of chromatic aberration causing purple on specular reflected areas, but that was hardly noticable, and easily corrected in Photoshop if needed.

 

I actually miss it quite a bit, since I sold it to get the 28-135.

 

I'm waiting to see what that new Sigma 18-125 does, when it comes out. That would be an excellent range for the DRebel, if the optics are on par with the 28-135 performance.

[yakim_peled1]

>> The 50/1.8 is my benchmark for the quality of images I want to get.

 

Same here. This one really spoiled me. When I compared wide open pictures from the 50/1.8 II and other good lenses (ISO 100 Fuji negatives up to 20X30 cm), the ones from the 50 were visibly sharper. It was also much better (sharpness, distortion, flare resistance etc.) than all my other former lenses (Tokina 100/2.8 macro, Tamron 28-105/2.8, Canon 17-35/2.8 USM L, Canon 70-200/4 USM L, Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM). Only my new primes - 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8 and 200/2.8 - equate or top it.

 

After 12 years of use it looked brand new. It gave me no mechanical problems or worries of any kind. Just a peace of mind and thousands of excellent pictures. I only sold it because I came to realize that I do not like this focal length. I replaced it with the 35/2 and 85/1.8.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[william_blair1]

I went through this same problem with my 300D and the 28-135 IS.

 

This camera and lens combo was very uncomfortable hanging around my neck when hiking or moving around. The weight of the lens caused the combo to hang lens down and bounce around alot. I really like the 28-135 IS. It is probably the best walk around lens with acceptable quality you will get for the 300D. My solution to this problem was to get the BG-E1 battery pack (this model number may be incorrect. I am sure someone can correct me if so.)

The difference is night and day. Your problem may not be actual weight, but balance. With the battery pack, the lens and camera hang perfectly and are much more stable when carried. This would be a much cheaper solution to your problem. I would not lightly give up on the 28-135 IS.

 

Bill,

[henry_minsky1]

Bill, your advice was very insightful. I sold the 28-135, went through two weeks of remorse, and bought another one! I have the new Sigma 18-125, and under optimal conditions it gives similar results to the Canon 28-135..BUT.. optimal means bright light and a stable place to hold the camera. IS turns out to actually make a big difference, I didn't realize how much I

was relying on it until I didn't have it any more. I found that my shots in medium and lower light were not nearly as consistent as with the Canon.