135mm Zoom for an APS-C Usefulness?

[vernoldham]

<p>Hey everyone,<br>

I'm getting ready to buy a 60D and am unsure of what lens to get with it. There is a 28-135mm or a 28-200mm. I am going to be vacationing in Paris next spring and would like to be able to zoom in across a street and things like that. I've always been bummed out with my current 18-55mm lens and I assume that a 135mm will be amazing compared to what I'm used to. Can anyone post a sample of the two extreme focal lengths of this lens? Or at least try explaining...<br>

Thanks a lot!<br>

-Vern</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Either of these lenses will be a 'normal' to telephoto, even long tele, on a 60D. You would have nothing that falls into the "wide angle" range on an APS-C camera like the 60D.</p>

<p>I don't personally know the 28-200mm, but I did have a EF 28-135 IS lens, and my daughter loves it on her APS-C cameras. It's an older kit lens, in effect, like the EF-S 18-55, except from the days of 35mm film. [its direct APS-C counterpart is the EF-S 17-85mm lens mentioned below]</p>

<p>I personally did not find even the 18mm to be wide enough for me on an APS-C body. I got the older EF-S 17-85mm IS lens - still love it, but I ended up buying a Sigma 10-20mm to get me still wider. Today, I might well be satisfied with the <strong>EF-S 15-85mm IS</strong> lens, and I strongly recommend you consider that.<br>

If you do get one of the longer range zoom lenses, I would keep your EF-S 18-55mm even if it is the un-stabilized one. It's better than people say, and it is a wonderful, light lens for much everyday shooting.There is really no reason for anyone to be "bummed out" on it except that it will not bring you prestige among your hoity-toity L-user club members. For actual photography, as opposed to bragging, on the other hand, it's not so bad. The IS kit version is even better.</p>

<p> </p>

[paddler4]

<p>I don't use either of those lenses, but in general, superzooms (lenses with very large zoom ratios) tend to have lower optical quality. If you look here <strong>http://tinyurl.com/3oflnod</strong> it looks like the quality of the 28-200 is lower than that of the 28-135, which makes sense, given the zoom factor of 10. You can google for more reviews. maybe someone who has these can chime in with personal experience.</p>

<p>Despite its cheap build, the current 18-55 gets pretty good reviews for optical quality. (The old, non-IS one was not very good.)</p>

<p>If you want something longer than you have, one option (expensive and not very fast) is the EF-S 15-85 (not 17-85), which is a optically a very good lens. If you want longer yet, the options include the EF-S 55-250 (a budget lens that is remarkably good for the price), various non-Canon lenses, or one of the Canon 70-200s. the last are very expensive, if you get IS, and I would not recommend them until you are sure what types of lenses you really need.</p>

[vernoldham]

<p>Oh man! I'm a dope. I meant to say 18-135mm and 18-200mm! Sorry, and thanks for your replies. Anyone else?</p>

[vernoldham]

<p>By the way, JDM von Weinberg, thanks for that url, it's a great tool.</p>

[thomasly]

<p>Vern, I used the EF-s 18-135mm on my T1i for a short while..<br>

I only took some shots at the longer end of 100 & 135mm, never shot wide with it!<br>

I know I'm going to get beat up here, but I did like it a lot as far as sharpness, despite the reviews saying it's NOT all that good and it just a kit lens,etc.etc.. seems like most are going towards the EF-s 15-85mm looks great but is out of my budget right now..<br>

Best</p>

[vernoldham]

<p>Thanks T.P.,<br>

It looks like I'm in the same boat. I'm kind of drooling over the 15-85mm but it's out of my budget as well. I'm just starting to nerd out on this stuff again and I think my eyes are bigger than my wallet. I'll probably settle with the "kit" lens until I notice its limitations. </p>

[thomasly]

<p>Another option is to Rent or borrow one of the lenses on your list and take as many<br>

shots as you can , <strong>do your own testing</strong>..this way you will be Ready by Spring time!</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>You should ask yourself what problem with your 18-55 you are trying to solve. If it is reach then either of these super zooms will give you longer focal lengths. The issue with super zooms is the IQ compromise. With lenses that go from wide angle to telephoto the designers face a big design compromise as they go from retrofocus (at the wide end) to telephoto. I have personally always stuck by the rule that anything over a 3x zoom is a big compromise - of course with Canon this is a big increase in cost. I actually own the 18-135 as it came for an extra $200 with my 7D. It is not a good lens but it is OK - the IQ is not the best (but I mainly use the 16-35 F2.8II, 24-70 F2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and 70-200 f4IS so it is not a fair comparison) but the IS and AF are really quite good (despite not being a USM lens the AF is quite fast).<br>

If you want better IQ you are probably better with two lenses - the 17-55 (or your 18-55) and the 50-250. While I have never used any of these lenses the design compromises will be less. You will find that the high pixel density on the 60D makes it quite hard on lenses - revealing all their faults.</p>

[vernoldham]

<p>That's good to know Philip. That the 60D will show the lenses weaknesses. I think I AM concerned with being able to get at a subject that is far away without them noticing (in the case of people). I'm not one of those "shoot first and ask questions later" sorts of photographers. It will certainly be interesting to compare my 18-55mm with the possible 18-135mm. However, I guess what I would like to know more than anything, is whether the 200mm is worth it. Will that get me anything that I couldn't get reasonably with a 135mm. Maybe I should visit a local shop and look through the lens eh? You guys have been very helpful.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>If the question is "is the field of view very different at 200mm than 135," the answer is yes. You'll see that when try one. the real questions, it seems to me, are whether you need that extra reach and, if so, what the best way is to get it.</p>

[rocky_2]

<p>I bought my 30D with a 28-135. Then I bought a cheap 18-55 and found I used it a great deal more than the 28-135. Going down to 18mm adds a lot and the 18-55 is a good lens even when compared to the much higher priced 17-55. Instead of the 28-135 (full frame lens) you might think about supplementing the 18-55 with the 55-250mm Canon lens or replacing both with the 18-270 Tamron pzd. I've owned both (actually the heavier non pzd version of the Tamron) and both took great pictures when the photographer was on the ball. Any of these compare favorably as a walkaround lens in weight with the 28-135. Good luck! </p>

[bonyari]

<p>Instead of getting either an 18-135 or 18-200, I suggest getting a 55-200mm IS. It is very good. You can get one for about $160-200. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Vern I suggest that you look at 1 lens and 2 lens solutions in a store (usually they will match online prices or get close enough that it makes no difference after shipping). Shoot some images and look at them later - you want to try the ends of the zoom range wide open and stopped down. Shoot high and low contrast subjects if you can. You should also compare AF speeds, build quality and image stabilization.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I agree with Philip, but also with Tuan. Consider the 55-200mm. I usually don't recommend lenses with such a wide range of focal lengths. the compromises are likely to be more than on lenses with a smaller range of focal lengths.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>There might be a typo above: I am not aware of a Canon lens which is 55 to 200 with IS.<br>

There is the (relatively new) <strong>EF-S</strong> 55 to <strong>250</strong> F/4~5.6IS and this is an excellent value for money lens with more than reasonable IQ and also superb mate for the 18 to 55 kit lens you have.</p>

<p>There is also the <strong>EF</strong> 55 to<strong> 200</strong> F4.5~5.6 series of lenses: but I believe none in this lens series, has IS. I have not used any of the EF 55 to 200 series of lenses.</p>

<p>WW </p>

[William Michael]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/14258072-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="700" /></p>

<p>Dunno how wide the streets are in Paris, but that's "across the street" - the width of two lanes of traffic. <br>

And . . . obviously a 250mm lens will be a tad closer.</p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[William Michael]

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/12526152-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1020" height="680" /></p>

<h1>Li Cunxin (Mao’s Last Dancer), Sydney 2005</h1>

<p>F/5.6 @ 1/40s @ ISO1600, Hand Held (Camera 20D)</p>

<p>Don't throw away your "bummed out" kit lens.<br />This is a shot using the crummy one, the first version of the kit lens, without IS: used almost at the wide open aperture.<br /> <br>

WW</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In light of corrections, I'd still say to consider an EF-S 15-85mm IS lens. It's wider (that 3mm means more on this end) than 18mm so the need to get an ultrawide additional lens is less. It is an excellent lens, one that seems to be better than the slightly longer zooms. (look at reviews of all of these on <a href="http://www.photozone.de/all-tests">Photozone.de</a>)</p>

<p>There is, as I said, an excellent older 28-135mm IS lens from back in film days. Some people like my daughter use it as their standard on a APS-C body, but obviously aren't taking <em>any</em> wide angle shots except on their older 18-55mm lens.</p>

<p>And, regardless, as WW says again, keep the 18-55, especially if it is the IS version. It's very handy for walkabout shooting when you want a lighter less noticeable camera. You'd get practically nothing for it - certainly less than it will be likely worth to you.</p>

[bonyari]

<p>William W, I meant to say the 55-250mm IS. I wasn't aware that there was another lens of the similar focal range. Thanks.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>TH,<br>

OK</p>