Trying to decide on my next lens

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by photo_guy74, Apr 21, 2010.

  1. photo_guy74

    photo_guy74 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Hello all,

    A little over a month ago, I entered the DSLR world for the first time by purchasing the Canon EOS 40D. I must say that I LOVE this camera! Quite a big improvement over my old Fuji s7000 prosumer. Anyway, the lens I purchased to start off with is the Canon 1.8 50mm lens, and it is quite impressive for the money..but now I am looking for a lens with a decent wide angle with very sharp, and clear image quality. Right now, I have my eye on two lenses..the Canon 17-40mm L Lens and the Canon EF 28-135mm lens. I would love to get the 17-40 L lens, but my budget would better allow for the Canon EF 28-135mm lens...so here is my question; in terms of image quality, do you all think the Canon EF 28-135mm lens would offer a HUGE difference over the current 1.8 50mm lens I currently have, or would it just be a minimal difference at best? I already know the 17-40mm L would be a huge difference over what I have, but what about the Canon EF 28-135mm lens vs. the 1.8 50mm lens? Again, I referring to overall image quality, clarity, and sharpness. Thanks for the thoughts/comments in advance!
     
  2. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    St. Louis
    I owned the EF 28-135mm IS lens before ... but I sold it. And now, I am using the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens with my 40D most of the time.

    The 28-135mm lens is not a bad lens, but it is not great one neither. Build quality wise, the 28-135mm lens is better than the Tamron (slightly). However optically, Tamron wins! And I would rather have a wider walk around lens 17mm vs 28mm with my 40D.

    Of course, the 17-40mm f/4L is also a great lens. But it cost more than the Tamron. The only draw back with the Tamron is the lens is made for cropped camera body only while the other 2 will work on both cropped and full frame body.
     
  3. stevemunoz

    stevemunoz TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    95
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Compared to you 50 1.8, the 28-135 will be soft wide open, and moderately sharp as you stop the lens down. 28mm on a 1.6 crop body also isn't very wide, so I would check out the 17-50 2.8 tamron that was suggested above. It is a much better lens, although if you can save up, the 17-40 f4 L is amazing.

    I personally tried a 17-40 4 L and did not like the focal range on my crop sensor. I currently use a Sigma 10-20mm, a Sigma 24-70 2.8, and a Canon 70-200 4 L as my 3 lenses I carry around everywhere. If I will spend anytime indoors, I will usually bring along the 50mm 1.8 with me as well.

    Hope this helps,

    Steve M.
     
  4. photo_guy74

    photo_guy74 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    Thanks for the advice. I am surprised that the 28-135 mm wide open would be soft..well, I guess its back to the drawing board..I looked up the price of the Tamron and found on Amazon it is about 650...for $100.00 more I could get a 17-40mm L. (sighs...decisions..decisions). Focal length is not a big deal for me at this point, although it would be nice to have a little. I do a lot of portrait photography and also weddings so my main points are clarity/image quality and a wide angle capabilities..hmm..I may have to just get the 17-40mm L. Is there a huge difference in image quality with the 17-40L vs Tamron? Not focal length..just overall image quality?
     
  5. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    get the tamron 17-50, it's a stop faster, is a more useful range, and it's cheap. The Canon 28-135 sucks.

    It will not be as sharp at f/2.8 as your 50mm f/1.8, few zoom lenses will be. Most zoom lenses are not very sharp wide open.

    the Fuji S7000 is not prosumer, it is very much an amateur point and shoot. Your 40D is closer to prosumer.
     
  6. bigtwinky

    bigtwinky No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    4,820
    Likes Received:
    285
    Location:
    Montreal
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I shot with a friends 28-135 and it gave ok results, nothing spectacular.

    I would skip over this lens, save up some money for the Canon or as mentionned, get the Tamron equivalent.

    I have a Tamon 28-75 and love the lens. Cost me $500 instead of $1200 for the Canon 24-70. Not built as well (but still good), slower auto focus, but its nice and sharp. It is also lighter than the 24-70, which is nice on my back.

    So Tamron does make good lenses and I've read that the 17-50 is one of them
     
  7. Hardrock

    Hardrock TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,173
    Likes Received:
    36
    Location:
    Dallas
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I use the 17-40 with my 50D and Xt and love it! The focal length is not really wide but it is very sharp even wide open. I believe the lens is close to the 24-70 focal length range on a crop body. If wide is what your looking for maybe you should look at the 10-20 range lens. But the image quality is excellent on the 17-40.
     
  8. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    St. Louis
    The one you saw on Amazon must be the VC (similar to IS in Canon) version. The regular (older) one is about $460 at Amazon which is about the same as the EF 28-135mm lens.

    Non-VC
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/355/cat/23

    VC
    http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1297/cat/23
     
  9. photo_guy74

    photo_guy74 TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2007
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos OK to edit
    I am checking out the two lenses now...is there a difference between the two lenses? It appears they have the same specs..
     
  10. Dao

    Dao No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Messages:
    6,252
    Likes Received:
    418
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II VC Lens Review

    Quoted from the link above:
    "Overall, the Tamron 17-50mm non-VC lens is sharper, has less vignetting, has a similar amount of CA and has less barrel distortion on the wide end but more pincushion distortion on the long end. The non-VC 17-50 is a bit smaller and lighter. Obviously the 17-50 VC has the 4-stop-rated (I didn't test this yet) stabilization advantage."


    And it seems like there is a $25 rebate on the VC version til the end of this month.
    http://www.tamron.com/lenses/assets/rebates/Rebate_Jan10_Apr10.pdf
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

17mm vs 28mm lens

,
28 or 355m lens on a crop body