Zoom lens reccomendations form a prime lens user...

[robert_landrigan]

I'm looking to get a main lens for my wife's new Elan II....she's wanting a zoom,

not finding anyfun in the swapping of lenses willy-nilly. Sigh.:) Anyway, since i

seem to be more fond of primes, I thought i'd sound out a few lens and see

what yall think of them-

 

Most folks here seem to like the 28-105 or 28-135 IS, which is likely where I'm

headed. Anything to either of these lenses I should look out for?

 

Also condsidering one of the 70-200/70-210's out there, not sure of what

would be the better lens. this would be a secondary lens, for both of us(as my

longest is currently the 85 1.8USM)

 

Would welcome any suggestions/commenst you all feel like adding...

[eddie g.]

Tamron SP 24-135 has gotten much better reviews than Canon's IS and Nikon's 24-85mm have in the wide-tele zoom categories (see www.photographyreview.com). I bought a used one from B&H for $300. If you want a used one, DO NOT buy from B&H. They are a bunch of jerks (I found out later when I noticed the lens was missing its hood when packaged arrived and tried to contact them). A new one can be had for about $400. Anyway, it's a fast focusing lens and works pretty good in dim light, too. Also it's sharp, contrasty, and the front element does not rotate. If you're in US make sure you get the US version so you can have that 6-year warranty and also with all lenses you should check the focus at infinity to make sure it does not overshoot.

 

Something to note about the IS lenses, they can drain your camera battery faster.

[emaxxman]

Keep in mind that I am a Minolta user while you read my comments.

 

=================================================================

 

It would all depend on how nitpicky your wife is about quality and what requirements she has in a zoom. The 28-105 and 28-135 are great lenses. There are many, many fans of both these lenses for everyday use.

 

Of course, since they are "consumer level" lenses (which by no means means they are bad lenses), there are some tradeoffs. The biggest will be their max aperture. These are considered to be "slow" apertures and will prove quite frustrating in low light if you're not using either fast film or flash. Of course, if you don't mind using fast film (NPZ is great) or flash, their max aperture is just fine.

 

If your wife is nitpicky about quality, then the 28-70L f/2.8 lens is the only other option. It is a top notch quality lens as I'm sure you're aware of. Of course the limited zoom range is also something you need to consider. There is also a huge price difference.

 

Your wife also needs to consider how much weight she wants to carry around. The L lens will be heavy. The others not so heavy.

 

My recommendation is the 28-135mm lens. Its IS feature should help out somewhat in low light situations where slower shutter speeds are necessary. If the light is too low, she'll have to switch to using flash, fast film, tripod, and/or a fast lens like a 50 f/1.8.

 

As far as the 70-200 lens, I am very envious of Canon's 70-200 f/4 offering. It has a great reputation for being a great lens, fast focusing, sharp, and relatively light. I was recently considering a telephoto zoom and Minolta only has the 80-200 f/2.8. It was too expensive, even used, for me. If Minolta had an equivalent f/4 version at the same price as Canon's, I would've jumped all over it.

 

Good luck.

 

ps Do a search on Canon 70-200 and you'll find TONS of info. There's even a thread about the f/2.8 version a couple of postings below.

[brian_torio]

Robert - I agree that the 28-135 IS lens is an excellent choice for a standard lens. I actually use one, choosing not to get the much more expensive 28-70 F2.8. For typical shooting, it has proven fast enough. The IS definitely helps in low-light situations. No, it doesn't make the lens faster, but it certainly does help you (or your wife) capture some shots that might otherwise turn out poorly.

 

In the 70-200 range, Canon has three solid offerings. These are the 70-200 F2.8 with IS, the 70-200 F2.8 (no IS), and the 70-200 F4. The two F2.8 lenses are faster, but also heavier and more expensive. The F4 version is slower, but much lighter and less expensive. Your decision will depend on what you typically shoot and how important it is to have F2.8 or even F2.8 plus IS. If you can live with a max appeture of F4, the the 70-200 F4 is a great buy. Optically speaking, the lenses are all very good and you won't be disappointed by any of them.

 

Hope that helps.

[moshe1]

There is a $40 Canon rebate on the 70-200 f4. It's an incredible buy for a top quality lens. By the way, I buy from B&H and I know that their reputation is solid. They have great customer service and will always treat you fairly. If you check with other forums and other photographers, you will find the majority deal with B&H or Adorama.

[jimstrutz]

There is almost NOTHING in Eddie Gowharrizi's comments that I agree with, except that the Tamron 24-135 is a good lens.

 

B&H is a good company to buy from, even used equipment. And almost all consumer zooms can be made to "overshoot" infinity focus. What's the big deal with that? That's what autofocus (or even manual focus) deals with all the time.

 

The Canon 28-135 USM IS is a great lens. Focuses very fast & the IS is great in marginal light. The 24-135 Tamron's advantage is the 24mm wide end. It's a great lens too. The Canon 24-85 or 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 are also very good lenses. Depends on how much money you want to spend and how much weight your wife wants to pack around. The 24-85 and 28-105 are quite a bit smaller/lighter.

[PuppyDigs]

<P>The EF 24-85 USM, 28-105 USM and 28-135 IS USM are all excellent zooms for their price class. You can't go wrong with any of them. I wrote reviews on all three at:</P>

 

<P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm">http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm</A></P>

[jay_.]

In my experience that although the 28-135IS is about in the same ballpark as the others when used on a solid tripod, if handholding the IS puts it way out front.

[canon man]

I just bought a 28-105 II UsM from Adorama for $199.00 wit ha the lenshood for another 20 bones. It is an awsome lens. Balances pretty nice my 630 is quiet and focuses fast. I just developed my first roll of B/W for teh college newspaper and they are sharp and contarsty. I got an 8x10 enlargement with it that is sharp even at the edges. I highly recommend this one. The Full time focus is really a noice touch too. My next one will be the 100-300. Thats all I can afford on my budget for right now. If I can start making some money with my Photography I will condieder the higher dollar lenses and an EOS3 but for now I know the new 28-105 will give me the quality I need for a great price. Also I would,nt consider a third party lens for an EOS. I would for the FD system but I can see the difference between this USM lens and the new Tamron that I bought for my T90. The Tamron is great and means that I can have new optical technology(superior to that of a decade ago) for my T90. But, the Canon glass is definetely better for the EOS!

[eddie g.]

Well, to those of you who have had good experiences with B&H, lucky for you and by no means stop shopping there. Hope you may never have to go thru the way Mr. Israel at the used merchandise customer service of B&H treated me. I very politely told him that the lens hood was missing and he acted as if I just insulted his mother, right at the beginning. When I mentioned to him that I may not shop there again because of the way he was treating me, he said, "I have heard it from A LOT of other customers". So, I am not alone. And neither were my friend and his father who shoped from there as well. On the other hand I have had wonder treatments from Adorama, Henry's, Tristate and Samy's. In any case, I don't get any benefit by recommeding one over another, just wanted the good people out there to be aware and don't go thru what I did.

 

That said, a lens that overshoots infinity is useless when shot wide open on manual focus when you need to turn the focus knob to its max (infinity) and shoot fast without waiting for the camera to focus or in the low light conditions under autofocus settings when the camera actually turns the focus rim all the way to the max, thus producing blared images. If you had done some arial photography or had tried to take a quick snap of a fast moving animal which won't wait for you to frame, focus and shoot you would have known what I am talking about. And the same goes for street photography. Or, say if two subjects are one at 60' and one at 100', although they are both practically at infinity, when lens focuses on the subject at 60' with aperture whide open it blares out the one at 100'. This is most noticeable at the tele end. Quite often I have been forced to stop the lens down to f8 or beyond in order to get a good shot. If overshooting the infinity was not such a big deal, all the good lens manufacturers would not have cared to check for this as part of their quality control.

[derek_linney]

Robert,

Getting back to your original question. I've used the 28-135 IS and the 24-85 zooms and ending up sticking with the 24-85 since I found I often missed the wide end when using the 28-135 but rarely missed the long end when using the 24-85. But I do miss the IS which worked well.

 

I have used the 100-300 f4.5-5.6, 75-300 f4.5-5.6 and the 70-210 f3.5 - 4.5 and much preferred the 70-210 of the three until I bought a 70-200 f4L which is a really great lens.

[yakim_peled1]

The 24-85/3.5-4.5 + 70-200/4 are considered a great combo. They are very good (24-85) to excellent (70-200). They have the same filter size - the only Canon lenses to use 67mm. They cover a wide and useful focal lengths.

 

BTW, my experience with B&H was excellent.