A lens debate, AAAAArgh!

[pennyjack]

I have about $500 to spend on a lens. Here is what is currently in my bag:

 

Canon 20D

Canon 70-200mm f/4

Canon 18-55mm (kit lens)

Canon 50mm f/1.8

 

The lens that is glaring at me to be 'upgraded' is the 18-55. I would like to

do this but I have reached a quandry. I like the looks, on paper at least, of

the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS but the reviews I have read seem to be luke warm at

best (and I am a little leary of that f/3.5, I was hoping for better with $500)

I have seen this lens reviewed against the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro DF

and the Sigma did well and even beat the canon lens in some areas. As you can

see from the 'whats in my bag' section, I don't really have much sigma

experience. I was wondering if there are any of you, with a lens in the range I

have stated, could lend me your advice.

 

Thanks

[delwyn_ching]

For about $150-$180 more, you can have the very excellent Canon 17-40 f/4L. For $500, maybe the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.

[mendonphoto]

What angle of view do you want? Even 24mm on your camera is not very wide. And, do you want the IS?

 

My opinion is that there are some really good bargians, optically speaking, in the 28-80mm range. The Tamron 28-75 is good. The Tokina 28-70mm is also supposed to be good. They are both well within your budget. But, they're not very wide and they don't have IS.

 

Since you already have the 70-200mm and the 50mm, I'd go for something like the Tamron 17-35mm (pretty good), or the Canon 17-40mm - if you can stretch your budget.

 

There are also all the ~18-50mm f/2.8 dedicated APS-C lenses from various manufacturers to consider - if you have bought-in to the system for the long-haul.

[upe_vantonni1]

I've got a 28-135 and it is a good walk about lens. the 3.5 does not matter when you combine the IS and the 20D's high ISO settings. Actually I upgraded to teh 28-80L when I did some wedding work and was willing to sell the lens for less than 400$. Email me if you're interested.

 

but if you wanted fast, light and a good bang for your buck for 500$ go for the primes: 85/1.8 and the 24 or 28 even the 20. I've got the 20mm and it works well on the 20D but I'm a tele guy rather than wide angle. you could get two or more lenses for 500$.

[squareframe]

determine 'why' your existing lens is crying out 'upgrade me', and start there. what issues do you currently have with it, that is negatively impacting your photographic pursuits?

[byronlawrence]

the sigma lens (the one we got) was good, I like it it isn't a real 'macro' but it gets pretty close to your subject matter. it is wide ish.. but not WIDE, for a real wide lens something like the sigma 12-24 might be more appropriate. or any of the many other wide options out there. I have a 20d and am looking to get a wider lens than 24mm for some applications.

[gdanmitchell]

Unless you never use the wide end of that 18-55, you'll probably want something that

covers that wide range, especially on the crop sensor 20D.

 

There is a new (but expensive) EF-S lens that covers this range. (17-55?)

 

However with the existing 50mm f/1.8 and the 70-200mm f/4 you are a third of the way

to a very common setup - just add the 17-40mm at the wide end. Lots of people really on

just this set of three lenses.

 

Dan

[mormegil]

I'm surprised nobody mentioned the Canon 17-85. I found it worthwhile upgrade over the kit lens. I think it would fit the 20D sensor better than the 28-135, plus the IS is 1 stop better.

 

Don't forget you can sell your kit lens on E-bay.

[brian_keyashian]

I like the sigma 17-70. According to the reviews I've read it optically better than the canon 17-85 (I can't directly compare becuase I don't have the canon lens). It lacks IS but is about $100-150 cheaper.

 

Brian

[james_alexander]

I bought one Sigma lens for my Elan II that won't work on my EOS 3 and can't be sent back to Sigma for upgrade because it's no longer in production. That was my first and last Sigma lens.

[pennyjack]

Dang, dang, dang! Its always the same with canon; decide what you want to do, set up a budget, the realize its going to cost 20% more than you anticipated to do what you knew you were going to have to do in the first place ;-) It looks like the 17-40 is the way to go. Hearing you all sound out your thoughts here has been tremendously helpful...and your conclusions always seemed to drift toward the obvious. Now, besides the extra $180, I am going to need a good divorce attorney. I am looking for one in the $500 range to that will cover all my divorce needs...what? It's going to be more than that?!

 

 

Thanks, thanks, thanks!

[jim_larson1]

The 17-40/4L is a good choice. I shot with the 17-40/4L; 50/1.8; 70-200/4L for about a year (before upgrading AGAIN).

 

The 17-85/IS is a nice choice. . .more usability with a slight quality hit.

 

If you want faster than F4 lenses -> then you need to go prime. The 35/2 and 24/2.8 are both good choices. (I shot those lenses before getting the 17-40/4L)

[fast_primes]

For about $500, I'd recommend the Tokina 12-24 wide APS zoom. It will take you really wide, where you can't go now and it will likely beat the 18-55 kit zoom at its' low end.

 

For me, another "must have" would the Sigma 30F1.4 digital normal lens.

[andrew robertson]

I just love my 28-135 IS. I also really like the 17-85 IS, which is basically the same lens (but

with a 1.6 crop camera's FOV in mind. Seems like a perfect upgrade for the 18-55 too.

[wolver]

The Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 gets a 7.6 rating out of 10 over at the FM review forum, the Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 gets a 7.7 while the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 gets an 8.7 rating.<BR><BR>

 

You can't beat the image quality of the Tamron plus it costs less.

[neil_v.]

For wide-angle on my XT, I went from the 18-55 to the 17-85 IS, and then recently replaced that with the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

 

I replaced the 17-85 IS mainly it was simply too slow for dance photography. I haven't yet developed a fondness for the Tamron.

 

Canon: it's not too late to slip a stellar 20/2.8 replacement into the Photokina announcements!

[pontus_gustavsson]

17-40mm f/4L + 50mm f/1.8 + 70-200mm f/4L is an extremely sharp, lightweight and flexible combo that you never need to upgrade again if you don't need a super wide-angle, macro, tele or generally faster or stabilized lenses. I'd try to find a used 17-40mm f/4L is good condition.

[sudheer_m]

You have 2 zoom choices 17-85 IS lens and 17-40. The 17-85 has longer reach and IS and is pretty decent when stopped down.

 

17-40 is optically better but is still just 4.0(for landscape u really do not need anything faster)

 

Re-reading your post, u think f3.5 is too slow. If that is the case, best is to get 2 primes and keep the kit lens u have -- 2 good primes are 24 f2.8 and 35 f2.0

[yakim_peled1]

At under 500$ the Tamron 17-50/2.8 seems to be the best. With the extra 50$ you can buy a small present to your wife so she will know you are not thinking only about your hobbies......

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[ted_cullen]

I love the 28-135 and have used it for years. It is the lens I grab when I don't know what I'll run into. I once sold it along with my 1Ds when I was upgrading to the MKII but immediately replaced it. Great lens.