Upgrading from stock 18-55mm to 28-135mm IS?

[alan_fertmann]

This is my first time posting in a photo.net forum.

 

I recently purchased a Digital Rebel XT as an major upgrade from my previous point-and-shoot, a

Pentax OptioS5i. Some backgroud, so you have an idea about my skill level and how I will be using my

camera:

 

My girlfriend and I are traveling to Southeast Asia this summer and I wanted a more serious camera for

what will most likely be a once-in-a-lifetime trip. We'll be spending five weeks on riverboats, kayaking,

visiting Buddhist monastaries and temples, hiking, and eating our way through Vietnam, Cambodia, and

Laos and I felt like my Pentax wouldn't really do the trip justice. It had served me well on trips to

Europe and South America and I love how my pictures came out from those trips, but I was ready for an

upgrade and a dSLR was the obvious choice. I carefully researched cameras and kept coming back to

the Rebel XT. After an awful experience with FotoConnection (had I known about these forums, I could

have saved myself a major headache!), I finally got my camera, factory sealed, full USA warranty for a

very decent price.

 

So...all that said, I'm already thinking of upgrading my lens. I've spent the last few months practicing

on the Canon stock 18-55 lens that comes packaged with the Rebel and I've gotten mixed results in

low-light situations. Also, I'm anticipating having to zoom in on images on this trip and 55mm isn't

cutting it. After researching lenses on the internet, I've been reading a lot about the Canon EF 28

-135mm Image Stabilizer lens. It's in my price range (B&H has it for ~$400...oh, I learned my lesson

and am now researching online retailers :)) and I keep hearing about it being a great "walkabout" lens,

which would be great for this trip as I'd like to bring only one lens.

 

What is the consensus on this lens? I will probably use the autofocus features on the camera for *most*

of my shooting and I just want really good, frame-worthy photographs from this trip.

 

Is the IS feature worth it? What about buying a Canon telephoto without IS? Or will that just result in

close-ups that still look a little blurry? Since I'd like to bring only one lens, do you think that the 28

-135 would be a good choice? I obviously won't get the kind of wide angle shots I get now, but still, do

you think this is a worthy upgrade for a beginner who will mostly use autofocus but who has a

discerning eye for good photography?

 

Thanks so much for any help you can offer on this!

 

Alan

[andy_szeto]

Hi Alan, the 28-135 is a very good lens. However, I think the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is more suitable for your camera. It is very similar to the 28-135 with IS and USM. It also covers the angle of view as the 28-135 on film-base camera. Hope this helps.

[brucecyr]

Review here:

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_28135_3556_is/index.htm

 

You can noodle around and find a review of the 17-85 too.

[alan_fertmann]

Thanks for responding Andy.

 

What makes the 17-85mm more suitable? I'm relatively new to SLR photography, so

please bear with me here.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

The 28-135 is one of the most versatile lenses Canon makes - IF you don't mind losing wide angle capability on an APS format camera. I wish the build quality were better. But having said that, I've used mine constantly for more than six years, on both film and digital cameras, on many trips, and in all kinds of weather with no problems what so ever. The IS will give you about 2 stops better hand-holding, depending upon your ability with it. My copy of the lens is very sharp, but I try to avoid zooming all the way out at f5.6. Auto focus is fast and accurate, but in low light it sometimes won't "lock on." If that happens (generally inside dark buildings) just switch th AF off and focus manually. Only you can determine if this lens is right for your shooting style. But for a "walk around" lens, it is hard to beat for the price.

 

Phil

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Other posters might be right about the 17-85. I'm not familiar with this lens. But if you decide to go to a full-frame digital (or film) camera in the future, the EF-S lens won't work with it.

[Andy Collins]

Used with good technique and attention paid to settings, this is a great lens, one of Canon's best 'consumer' lenses in my opinion. There are certainly better lenses out there that provide better sharpness and contrast, although the crop sensor on your XT will use the central "sweet spot" of the lens more than would a full-frame camera, so sharpness will be an issue more at wider and very small apertures, and less so from edge to edge in general shooting throughout the mid-aperture range. From f/8 to f/16 or so this lens is great. I think the focal range on this lens is most useful and makes this lens a superb 'standard' lens. It is certainy capable of bringing back frame-worthy images from vacation as mine did on our last trip to Yosemite, 16x20's and several 11x14's both film and digital. The IS is helpful I think, as it provides extra insurance at shorter focal lengths, and a noticeable difference at longer focal lengths. I wish the build quality were better as it feels wobbly, but this has never affected the lens's performance in my experience, and I've had mine since late 1997! Canon seems to still have faith in its selling power as it's being featured in some of the latest 30D ads. I think it's a great choice because of the IS and the focal range, but another one to consider is the Tamron 24-135 which has no IS, noisier focusing, but a great reputation for sharpness and good contrast. In that price range, I think you'd do well with the 28-135. The 24-105 f/4IS would be a wonderful lens and I plan to get one at some point in the near future, but that's a whole different price point and you'll have to decide if the differences in performance are worth the difference in price (around $500-$700 more depending on where you shop). I think you'll like the 28-135.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Other posters might be right about the 17-85. I'm not familiar with this lens. But if you decide to go to a full-frame digital (or film) camera in the future, the EF-S lens won't work with it. The 28-135 on an APS sized camera works out to be about the same as a 45 to 210mm lens on a full frame camera. You just need to decide whether you want more on the long end, or the wide angle end.

[alan_fertmann]

OK -- Thank you all so much for opinions. Bruce: I read the reviews, but I'm afraid that

my lack of technical jargon knowledge isn't helping here. I did read the verdicts though.

Thank you.

 

Andy and Phil -- I really appreciate your responses. You've confirmed what I've read about

this lens and that means a lot. Thank you.

 

So, lets say that I do end up going with the 28-135 IS lens. Is it possible to gain wide

angle perspective with one of those fish-eye adaptors that Opteka makes? I came across

one of those in passing and I'm assuming that the edges will probably be really distorted,

but would it be useful in a pinch? Like, backed up against a wall at Angkor Wat?

 

Also, a more practical question: If I was planning on fitting the 28-135mm with a filter and

felt uncomfortable switching them on the trip, would you recommend a UV haze or a

circular polarizer? I'm thinking of a dedicated filter that would remain attached for the

duration of the trip. The weather there will be cloudy, hazy, and muggy in the north and

more sunny and clear (but still hot!) in the south.

 

Also, is my desire to fit my lens with one filter indicative of a total newbie? :)

[ronhartman]

If you go with the 28-135, I'd recommend you also take the 18-55 with you for a wide angle. The lens weighs next to nothing. The fish eye adapters will give you strange, lower quality results. They are meant more for special effects.

 

Get a UV filter. The polarizer is only of benefit under certain conditions, like darkening blue skies. But it is always reducing the amount of light coming through the lens. The UV filter is primarily to protect the front element of the lens, and will not do a lot to cut the haze.

[zackojones]

Alan,

 

You've gotten lots of good feedback on lenses so I'll address your other questions :). Take both filters and don't be afraid to change them out as needed. I recently returned from a trip to Germany and Israel and took both filters and swapped as needed.

 

Consider taking your old camera long for those wide angle shots if you do go with the 28-105 (Which I'm seriously considering for my XT as well).

 

Get a STURDY monopod and take it along. I took a flimsy one (six section configuration) on this trip promptly tossed it into the trash upon my return. I replaced it with a 3 section carbon fiber monopod and am very pleased with the new one.

 

Consider renting a lens if you're not 100% sure what you want at this point. I have dealt with Paul from www.lensprotogo.com and have been extremely pleased with his recommendations and service. I'm expecting the 100mm macro lens to show up tomorrow for my upcoming trip to Bermuda.

 

Spare batteries and memory cards. Odds are you'll get a full day worth of shooting from your battery but having a spare is always a good thing. Same goes for memory cards. I started each day of my trip with a fresh battery and freshly formatted 2 gig card and had zero issues.

 

Enjoy your trip -- it sounds like quite an adventure!

[m_hamburg]

Alan, I'm a relative newbie as well, but I recently upgraded to the 28-135 IS from the kit lens. In general, I'm very happy with it. You do lose the wide angle of the kit lens, but generally I don't miss this, as most of my shots are of people and smaller objects. If I did scenery and landscapes more, I might prefer the 17-85. I think it's really a matter of style and preference.

 

Since you'll be traveling with the camera, you might want to be aware that the 28-135 IS is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the kit lens. When you're used to traveling with smaller, lighter camera, this can be quite noticeable- it's enough of a difference to me that I'm sometimes inclined to take the camera with the kit lens instead just because it's lighter. I've not used the 17-85, but I know it's a little lighter than the 28-135; it would still be a lot heavier than your kit lens, though.

 

I'm sure that the size and weight differences won't matter to many people, but they do matter to me and I think it's something you should at least be aware of. (And, unfortunately, all of the "better" lenses are heavier.) That being said, I'd definitely make a little extra space for the better lens.

[drew_para]

I think the 28-135 is solid lens, the 17-85 does offer a slightly more useful focal range. However, it costs about $100 more and has its own demons to deal with. I think the 28-135 will treat you well, keep your 18-55 for situations where you want to be wider.

 

Think of IS as the ability as a hedge against needing a tripod. It buys you time because you can leave the shutter open longer.

 

The 28-135 is a decent close-up lens. It's not a macro, but will treat you well.

 

You will want a circular polarizer for the lens, it has a 72mm filter. Plan to spend at least $50, but obviously you get what you pay for... I would also recommend that you pick up a the matching Canon hood. I would not worry about the UV/Haze filter.

 

Also, think about buying the 50 f/1.8 ($80) since between the 18-55 and 28-135 you will have no fast lenses for low light use.

[alan_fertmann]

Thanks Ron. I appreciate the advice on filters. My girlfriend had recently bought me a

circular polarizer (she knew I was researching a new lens) and I still have it in the

packaging. It looked smokey and I had assumed that it would reduce light overall. I had

wondered if it would be a good filter or not.

 

Alright, so then for this trip, my camera kit will most likely include the following:

 

Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT

 

28-135mm IS lens (primary) affixed with UV filter

 

18-55mm lens (for wide angles) in a lens pouch

 

2x 2GB CF cards

 

2x Li-on batteries

 

1x Charger

 

Small cleaning kit

 

Small LowePro Zoom Mini Bag (for when the camera is in my backpack)

 

Neoprene Camera sleeve (for a little added protection when it's in my shoulder bag)

 

Any other items I should seriously consider? I was thinking about a tripod, but we're

backpacking and I wanted my kit to be light and portable.

[alan_fertmann]

OK - I posted that last comment before reading the ones below Ron's. Thanks guys.

 

How easy is it to switch out filters without getting dust in there? Any tips?

 

Also, I plan on keeping my pics on these CF cards. Maybe I should get an extra 2GB?

Right now I get about 500 pics on each 2GB card. I came home from 3 weeks in South

America with about 600 photos. I thought that 1000 would be enough for this trip, but

maybe having an extra around would be good peace of mind.

 

Also -- I'm overwhelmed with the response to my questions. I'm really glad I found this

forum.

 

Mark, Thanks for the insight on size / weight. I'm embarrassed to say I hadn't really

considered these issues. :)

[brucecyr]

"one of those fish-eye adaptors that Opteka"

 

You can search the archives for further elucidation, but basically its a piece of junk according to most posters.

 

"If I was planning on fitting the 28-135mm with a filter and felt uncomfortable switching them on the trip"

 

Another "newbie" fixation, and not particularly meaningful :-) Dust on your lens probably won't be noticed at all -- unlike dust on your sensor, which is a great nuisance and constant problem. So change your filters at liberty, but get paranoid about switching your lenses. This latter point would make the fixation about using just a single lens fairly reasonable.

[Andy Collins]

Get another card. Always err on the side of having too much memory rather than finding yourself in an incredible photo op while having no memory space left. You may not need it but you never know. Also there's always the chance that a card could be damaged or be corrupted somehow--probably not likely, but you never know. As cheap as CF cards have become, get plenty. I agree also with taking both filters. Again you never know if you'll be in a situation where a polarizer might be the key to a beautiful shot, and a UV filter on your lens is good protection anyway. I took my 20D out of my camera bag about 3 months ago to find the UV filter on the front of my 28-135 was shattered. I don't know what I hit it with or exactly what happened, but had I not had the filter on, the front element would have taken the blow instead. I'd rather pay for a filter than pay for my lens to be repaired. It's all personal preference; some folks don't use filters unless they need them and have no problems otherwise. I prefer to play it safe, especially if I'm going somewhere I won't be returning to soon.

[William Michael]

I reckon you are pretty squared away, but two thoughts for consideration:

 

1. You are WAY short on memory and storage. It is not like you can buy another 2GB card easily when you are up the river.

 

Using your maths, and two 2GB Cards @ 500 shots per card:

 

5 weeks

 

= 35 days

 

= (approx) 560 waking hours for a `trip of a lifetime` (8 hours sleeping per day, probably not?)

 

= capacity for less than 2 shots per hour.

 

 

2, have you considered a small flash unit.

 

WW

[brucecyr]

If you do plan to switch lenses regularly, then you really need to add a sensor cleaning kit to your gear for five weeks of travel -- unless dust spots on your images isn't a big deal.

 

PS: Its a lost cause in this context, but I think the 17-85 is a superior choice -- if only you didn't have that danged 18-55, which could fetch about $50 on eBay, minus your selling costs.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I've spent the last few months practicing on the Canon stock 18-55 lens that comes packaged with the Rebel and I've gotten mixed results in low-light situations.</i></p><p>The replacement lenses you are considering will not help with that. You should look for lenses that are f/2.8 or faster (smaller f/ number), if you want better results in low-light situations.</p>

[phule]

The Canon 17-85 is probably the lens you need. That and a ton of memory cards. (However, I'm a big fan of the Sigma 17-70 which, while lacking IS has a better aperture range and is less expensive)

 

And a way to really really keep the camera from getting dropped into the water.

[axel-cordes]

I did not read all above. My suggestion is to wait to buy a new lens as long as possible, until you really need it - as you will figure out in time where you have your preferences - on the short or long lens - and the more experiences you will have the better lens you will have and then you may would need to update your equipment again. Figure out what you like most, Street, Portrait, Landscape etc and then check out what suites best. (May be prime lenses will be at then end) Regards Axel

[robin_sibson1]

You're actually proposing to add a second lens rather than upgrade the lens you have, giving you coverage from 17mm to 135mm. If you bought the 17~85, that would replace the kit lens and give you coverage from 17mm to 85mm with better quality at the wide end than you would get from your proposed option. It depends what your priority is: better quality at the wide end or more coverage at the long end. Although from what I understand about the kit lens, it's good enough that you should not be describing results as 'blurry', and you may need to review how you are using it. My wife bought the 28~135 as a lens for a film body years ago, and continues to use it on 1.6-factor digital, and it certainly works quite satisfactorily over the focal length range that it covers. There are plenty of other Canon options, of course, but there's no point in suggesting things beyond your price range.

 

Let me add my voice to the need for more storage. MUCH more storage. Until recently the solution was a storage unit combining a disk drive and card reader, but card prices have now come down to about GBP10 per gigabyte for a fast card from one of the major manufacturers, and unless you use your camera in permanent spraygun mode it is an economic proposition just to buy enough cards.

[yakim_peled1]

I often wondered why do so many DSLR users want to take one of its biggest advantages and make it into a deficit. Get the 28-135 but add a UWA lens like a Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 10-20. IMHO UWA are essential in trips/vacations. Price not an object? 10-22 + 24-105.

 

Add a small and good flash like the 430EX and you are all set.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[Andy Collins]

I failed to pay attention to the fact that you're going to Southeast Asia. I went to Indonesia for 3 weeks in the mid-90's when film was still the course of the day, and let me say that a polarizer is certainly a must for the scenery you will encounter. Next, you will need much more than 2 or 3 memory cards for that length of time considering the sights you'll see, like the beautiful temples, terraced rice paddies, colorful traditional dancers, not to mention the colors of the country-side and the cities. At the time I took a Tamron 28-200mm lens, the first autofocus edition, and found the ability to zoom in and out to be invaluable. So while I think that suggestions like the 17-85 certainly have merit as do the other lenses mentioned, the 28-135 has the best focal range coverage of the bunch and will be more useful in more situations. And as mentioned earlier, used with deliberation it provides excellent results, certainly better than my 28-200 I had at the time. I'd take the kit lens as well because as embarassing as it is to be seen with (personal opinion regarding its cheap build quality) it can give pretty decent results when used judiciously, and it'll give you the coverage at the wide end. But for sure, take LOTS more memory, especially since this is a "once-in-a-lifetime trip". I'd also take your little Pentax too as a back-up camera, and to use when you're around sand and salt water as you most certainly will be at some points. Besides, it's always good to have some type of back-up on a trip of such importance, and you'll be in situations where you won't want to drag out your 'big gun'. I also agree with the suggestions regarding a small and good flash.