Zoom Lens For Street Photography

[paul rest]

Hello All,

 

I've had a Rebel Ti for about a year now, am loving it but want to

get a zoom lens to compliment my 50mm (which I bought instead of the

kit zoom thanks to photo.net). I primarily shoot street photography,

but also do some portraits and abstracts. My birthday is coming up,

which is how I'm getting a new lens (starving student), but I keep

bouncing back and forth between the options.

 

One of the strongest contenders has always been the USM 28-135 IS,

mainly because it's a USM (although I'm sure I'd like the IS as

well). I've also done some nail-biting over the USM 28-105, but this

doesn't have the ring-type USM (or so I recall), nor the IS, nor

quite the upper focal length. But then this is hugely complicated by

the presence of third-party lenses (arg!). Tamron makes a 28-200 XR

which is attractive and has a good rating on photographyreview.com,

plus it has the longer focal length (candid shots in crowds, a big

plus), but it doesn't have USM, and it's AF isn't as fast. Tamron

also has their 24-135 AS. Then there's Tokina's 24-200 AT-X, which

also has a good rating on photographyreview.com. Then there's also

the Sigma's 28-200 DL lens. Then there's also...

 

As you can see, I'm probably just over-un-non-confusing myself,

lathering all this info on my head. I guess my real question comes

down to: how important is the USM for street photography? With my

current EF lens the only time I use manual is for close-up abstract

type shots, but I can bet the USM is a lot better than selecting AF

points on the Rebel Ti. But with the zooming and and out, I don't

know how "handy" it is to have. Then there's also the focal length

question, and I know HCB used a 50mm and that's the "pure" way to do

street photography, but I'm more interested in getting up close to a

subject when I'm trapped behind a crowd, barriers, or whatever, than

remaining true to a supposed tradition. But for the folks out there

who do street photography with zooms (we the unfaithful), maybe you

can help me out.

 

It's really to bad lenses are so much cheaper from mail-order

companies, because in situations like this it's often best for me to

just walk into a store and say "give me a WA to tele zoom lens!"

(basically what I ended up doing in picking a camera body). But maybe

those much more experienced and wise, and definitely more decisive,

can help me out.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

-Paul

[gerry_szarek]

Paul, contrary to what you want to hear, I will give you my 2 cents worth. You are looking for a zoom to photo people, you need reach to get over barriers, etc. Try looking at the 100 to 300 canon zoom. If you are into quality try a 135 and maybe a 180. Canon makes a very nice L series lenses, the slow ones are actually affordable.

 

Gerry

[the the]

This all depends on how far, and how close, you want to photograph subjects without changing the lens.

 

Personally, I would be interested in having a zoom that is capable of going 24mm at the wide end, and at least 70mm in the telephoto end. This leaves a couple of options, the first and cheapest being the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, and the second and more expensive being the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM. You can go longer if you don't mind only 28mm at the wide end, and get the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, which is highly regarded, or you can get the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. These should be very versatile for your purposes.

 

 

I generally use a 28mm or 50mm prime on the street. For crowd situations, or when I can't get close to a subject, I've thrown on a 100mm prime on occasion. Would I benefit from a longer lens? Probably. But I wouldn't want to leave a long lens on my camera and lose my wide angle capabilities. I would much prefer a 24-85mm or 24-70mm, or even the 28-105mm and 28-135mm zooms over something that gets me up to 200mm but compromises heavily at the wider ends. But that is just my style preferences.

[paul rest]

Thanks for the answers so far, but to clarify a few points. I'm pretty poor (student), and this is going to be a present from my parents, so $400 is about the limit (give or take). Unfortunately, that means the L series is out of the question (I would love to get my hands on the 70-300 L, very jealous of a guy at a concert a few weeks ago who had one). While money is definitely an issue, I know with optics that you get what you pay for, so I'll probably end up close to the $400 (Adorama sells the Tamron 28-200 for just under $400 with the hood, which is tempting). I realize this is a non-specific, "feel" type of question (I shoot a variety of subjects from different distances), I can tell you that I also want the wide end (often run into that problem with my 50mm), and that while more room in the long range is good, I still want decent optical quality (with all the various limitations of zooms considered, of course). Keep the answers coming! Thanks.

 

-Paul

[jmublueduck aim]

believe it or not, I'd recommend WIDE for some interesting street photos. Look into

the Tamron 19-35mm. 35mm is a good range to work with, and being able to go

wider is a real boon. That lens is around $200.

[melissa_eiselein]

If you're parents are willing to fork out the money, you can't go wrong with the 28-135 IS. The added 30mm coupled with the quality of the shots and the hand-holding IS help makes it well worth the money. If you parents think that's too expensive, then I'd vote for Canon's 28-105 3.5-5.6 (not 4-5.6) as a second choice.

[yakim_peled1]

Personally, I prefer a fast aperture over IS (that is, assuming you can't have both). Thus I'd recommend 35/2 (225$) or 135/2.8 SF (280$), depending if you want a tele or wide. I'm sure that if you find them used, the price will be much cheaper.

 

If you insist on a zoom then from what I read the 28-135 IS is a strong candidate for the "Best non-L zoom" award.

[chip l.]

A lot will depend on how you define street photography. Many consider long lenses to anti-street photography. IMO a great lens would be the 24-85USM. It'll cover most what a street photographer would want.

[gareth_harper]

Street photography and zooms?

Once thing you really want to do with street photography is to be decrete, get a secondhand 28mm to compliment your 50mm. Also learn to preset the exposure and focus as you eye up your shot, then get in close quicky and press the button. The 28mm has hyperfocal markings to help you here.

On the other hand for demos and events I stick on the grip and pop on my Tokina 28-80 f2.8

People react to cameras, nobody takes much notice of an EOS33 and a 28mm. On the other hand stick on the grip the big zoom and everybody thinks you are press which at times is handy but no use for traditional street photography.

[paul rest]

Let me clarify a bit further here:

 

I realize that traditionally street photography has been done up close and personal with either standard or wide lenses, and I certainly have plenty of experiences where I do get up close and the shot couldn't really be "gotten" any other way, but also there are plenty of times where something happens down the street, across the street, etc., where by the time I could get there to shoot with standard or wider, the moment has passed. In addition to that, I would like a longer lens for portraits, the abstracts that need it, but would also like a wide lens for the times I need that as well. The "bag of primes" approach doesn't work for me for two reasons, money and weight, both of which are strengthened by the fact that I make no money from my photos (ie, I don't want to schlep [sic?] around a 30 lb camera bag all the time for a hobby). I want a jack of all trades lens (walk-around lens) that will deliver decent images, and costs $400 or less. Being inconspicuous isn't too big of an issue for me since I live in a college and tourism town so lots of people have SLRs with zooms, so a chest log really isn't going to make me stick out too much.

 

So my question remains, how big of a deal is USM for street photography? Has anyone out there used both USM and third party lenses (zoom perhaps, any insight appreciated) or even EFs and has some sort of opinion of just how big an advantage USM is. Everything I read about the wonders of USM is usually in reference to nature or event photography. Additionally, how big of a deal is the ring-type versus the micro-drive USM, as the Canon 28-200 USM uses the micro and is another lens I'm considering?

 

From all the information I've amassed, the 28-135 USM IS really sounds like the best in overall quality and features, as noted above, but having that extra 65mm of focal length the 200mm lenses offer sounds attractive. So I'm still very conflicted.

 

Thanks for listening and any further info.

 

-Paul

[paul rest]

Let me clarify a bit further here:

 

I realize that traditionally street photography has been done up close and personal with either standard or wide lenses, and I certainly have plenty of experiences where I do get up close and the shot couldn't really be "gotten" any other way, but also there are plenty of times where something happens down the street, across the street, etc., where by the time I could get there to shoot with standard or wider, the moment has passed. In addition to that, I would like a longer lens for portraits, the abstracts that need it, but would also like a wide lens for the times I need that as well. The "bag of primes" approach doesn't work for me for two reasons, money and weight, both of which are strengthened by the fact that I make no money from my photos (ie, I don't want to schlep [sic?] around a 30 lb camera bag all the time for a hobby). I want a jack of all trades lens (walk-around lens) that will deliver decent images, and costs $400 or less. Being inconspicuous isn't too big of an issue for me since I live in a college and tourism town so lots of people have SLRs with zooms, so a chest log really isn't going to make me stick out too much.

 

So my question remains, how big of a deal is USM for street photography? Has anyone out there used both USM and third party lenses (zoom perhaps, any insight appreciated) or even EFs and has some sort of opinion of just how big an advantage USM is. Everything I read about the wonders of USM is usually in reference to nature or event photography. Additionally, how big of a deal is the ring-type versus the micro-drive USM, as the Canon 28-200 USM uses the micro and is another lens I'm considering?

 

From all the information I've amassed, the 28-135 USM IS really sounds like the best in overall quality and features, as noted above, but having that extra 65mm of focal length the 200mm lenses offer sounds attractive. So I'm still very conflicted.

 

Thanks for listening and any further info.

 

-Paul

[kodus]

Paul,

 

Please let me suggest you get to a camera store and try out the Rebel Ti and two or three lenses. Optical quality, zoom range, IS or no IS are some important considerations. Please let me add one more. I call this the lens physical properties (weigh, size and balance).

 

The 28-135 IS will feel light and small on an EOS 1 or 3 body. My experience is based on other models of Rebel (2000 and XS), and I can tell you the 28-135 will feel heavy on the Rebel 2000. This might cause you to not have your camera at the right moment. (Having a $7 disposable camera on hand is worth more than a $1000 system in the closet when opportunity presents itself.)

 

My personal choice for your type will be the Tamron XR for its range and physical properties. If you need super fast focus, how about setting the camera on pre-focus? This is what a lot of rangefinder folks do.

[bruce johnson]

I've tried the 28-135 for this and somehow I always feel like I stick out walking around with such a large lens on my camera. Can't point the camera at anybody without them noticing or else feeling self-concious. I feel much more comfortable with either my 20-35/3.5-4.5 or better yet my 50/1.8. I think if I were a little more serious I'd get a 28mm prime and use that along with my 50/1.8. Then I'd try not to worry about the photos that got away because I didn't have a short telephoto. From my feeble attempts, I can really see why rangefinders are the preferred type of camera for this kind of photography.

[catman5]

Paul -- in my experience, a zoom with big range works best. And use high definition film. I use Kodak Elite Chrome 400. I personally use a Tamron 28 - 300 XR. I don't want to use the Canon lenses in that range for several reasons. First, they are way too heavy; I move way too fast to carry a tripod when doing that kind of work. And more importantly for my style, I don't want perfect, because "perfect" it is not realistic when shooting candidly on the street. The upside of my lens is that it is relative small and unobtrusive. It also has a nice long end. Sure, it might be a little softer than the mega-buck lenses at each end but to me that is what life is about; a little quirky and off center. To me, perfect is not.... The down side? Haven't found it yet and don't believe it exists for my style of photography relative to this subject. Plus it is in your price range. Believe me, I know how that is. I used to use a 28 - 200 Tamron Super (II?) and gave it to my son who also has a Ti when I got the 28 - 300 XR. He loves it. The body I use is a IIe and focus time is quick. I don't think you would be dissapointed with this lens. However if you want perfect, great glass and are willing to put up with a really heavy lens, then save up for the 35 - 350 Canon. It is an awesome lens, but not good for handheld, on the fly stuff, again in my experience. A good thing to try is to rent a lens or two and see what feels good and how happy you are with the final images. That will give you a lot of information that you don't have now. Just a thought from someone who has been there.

[paul rest]

First off, thanks for all the help from everyone, especially Victor for pointing me to the Tamron 28-300.

 

I'd say at this point it's a toss-up between the Canon 28-135, the Canon 28-200, or the Tamron 28-300 XR. I read an article a while back about super-zooms which gave me the idea that they're really not worth it, but I think for my needs (I won't be blowing anything of my prints up much larger than 8x10) they'll be fine. It sounds like the optical technology has gotten to the point now where even a 28-300mm lens can still give good performance for a not-too-horrid price (even from my perspective). I'm still undecided whether the USM is worth the extra money, and whether the full-time manual of the 28-135 and 28-105 (ring type) Canon USMs are worth the sacrifice of focal length.

 

I have a further question though, Adorama lists a Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 (yum!) for $399, but they don't have any info on it nor can I find any info on it elsewhere. Anyone know why? Is is new? Old? A benediction only bestowed on the chosen few? The only other option I can think of is a mix-up on Adorama's part.

 

Thanks again for any insight.

 

-Paul

[catman5]

Paul -- you're welcome. With the right film you can go a lot larger with the Tamrons I described. Again, rent or borrow 'em and see how you like 'em. Otherwise it's just words....

[stefano_barazzetta]

Hi Paul, in order to your last question:

"I have a further question though, Adorama lists a Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 (yum!) for $399, but they don't have any info on it nor can I find any info on it elsewhere. Anyone know why? Is is new? Old?"

 

It is new.

You can't yet find it on the web-site,and it' been discussed here:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005PBZ

 

I'm veeeeeeeeery curious about it: I have the Tamron 19-35 (really good for my needs), but if Sigma 24-135 will demonstrate to be a good lense I think I'm gonna take it.

 

ciao ciao!

ste