Have you used these lenses?

[just looking]

Hello everyone, I hope you'll be able to assist me in making a choice for a walkabout lens for my Canon 450D.

I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens, the 55-250mm, and the 1.8 nifty fifty.

I'm looking to get myself a better quality walkabout lens. I use my camera in varying situations, like travel, event and sports photography, almost always without a tripod. I don't have the steadiest hand, so Image Stabilization is important for me. I find the 50mm giving beautiful shots, but a little troublesome to keep still. The 55-250 I find not quick enough for sports photography.

I have a budget of around £300, and with this I wanted to get the best IS lens available with good range and great optics. I think the Canon options I have available include:

-28-135mm IS USM
-18-135mm IS
-17-85mm IS USM.
-If I stretch my budget I might be able to pick up the 18-200, but does that compromise quality?

Extensive review site reading suggests to me that I should go with the 28-135mm, even with the zoom creep and heavier weight; but I'm hoping people might be able to give me some help regarding these or even other possibilities. Has anyone used these lenses? How do they compare to each other? I like the idea of a USM.

I'd be grateful for any help! Thanks in advance

 

[andyred]

Hello everyone, I hope you'll be able to assist me in making a choice for a walkabout lens for my Canon 450D.

I currently have the 18-55mm kit lens, the 55-250mm, and the 1.8 nifty fifty.

I'm looking to get myself a better quality walkabout lens. ......... The 55-250 I find not quick enough for sports photography.

I have a budget of around £300......

-28-135mm IS USM
-18-135mm IS
-17-85mm IS USM.
-If I stretch my budget I might be able to pick up the 18-200, but does that compromise quality?

Hi

When you say the 55-250IS is not quick enough for Motorsport, are you referring to the focusing speed or lens appature ?

Of the walkabout lenses you have listed:

I have the 17-85IS lens and really like it, get very good results with it and would recommend one, esp for the price, yes there are better lenses out there - 17-55 2.8, but then they have a price tag to match !

I have had the 28-135IS lens and really liked it, for me, a better focal length as a walk about lens, yes it is heavy and you do get a bit lens creep when carrying it, but then a lot of lenses do this, so don't worry about it. I'd certainly have another.

I've not had any experience with the other 2 lenses, but they're not USM, and personnaly re the 18-200, I'm not keen on the "all in one / superzoom" lenses, I feel it's too much of a compromise with such a focal length, having said that, I can see the appeal, esp if going on holiday.

Hope this is of help...

 

[Goody13]

Have you thought about non-Canon lenses? When I wanted to upgrade my kit lens that came with the 450D, after a lot of research, I settled on the Sigma 17-70 OS f2.8-4 and haven't looked back since. It's an excellent lens and has stabilisation, plus it's faster than the ones you list, so you can get an extra stop out of it at the fast end.

You would be able to pick this up new for just over £300. I have borrowed a friend's 28-135, before I got the Sigma, and I don't think that compares to the Sigma.

I have no experience with the 17-85, other than what I have read, so would not like to pass comment on that one.

 

[Prize78]

I have got the 28-135 and the 17-85, and to my eyes find them very nice indeed. Both lenses have great usm and IS. As has been said above, the 17-55 is the better lens, but is more than twice the price. The 17-85 can be picked up for good money second hand too.

 

[amtaylor]

+1 for the sigma 17-70.
I had the Canon 17-85 and it was ok but it had the lens creep and then the aperture jammed. My dad has the sigma OS one and my mum has the older design non os one which is supposedly a tad sharper but they are both better than the can and are often available used for less than the Canon

 

[Iris]

Have you looked for second hand? May increase your options. Also, what are you looking for - walk about lens or one for fast motor sports? A tip I was given in the motorsports critique section here was to try and keep your focal length around 200mm for successful panning - may be worth bearing in mind

 

[just looking]

Thanks for the fantastic advice guys!

I don't usually cover motorsports - mostly rugby, cricket and team sports. When I say the 55-250 isn't quick enough I mean the focus. But I know full well that to get a fast, sharp lens for sports I'm ideally looking at an L series. I guess this lens' primary use would be as a walkabout.

Andyred and Nick - you've had both the lenses, any preference? I think the 28-135mm seems to get warmer reviews, but I suppose hasn't got the wider starting point. Thanks for the advice.

This Sigma sounds fast and very interesting, it deserves some research I think. Do you guys trust secondhand lenses? Anything to look out for?

Thanks in advance for further help guys

 

[menthel]

You could save a little extra and go for the 15-85. I had one briefly and it is a very sharp lens with superb IS. I sold it as I already had a constant f2.8 lens in that range but the 15-85 was probably the better lens!

 

[andyred]

Andyred and Nick - you've had both the lenses, any preference? I think the 28-135mm seems to get warmer reviews, but I suppose hasn't got the wider starting point. Thanks for the advice.:

Hi

I'd possibly say the 28-135IS, but it's not a definate clear cut choice - as you say you loose the wider ange, but you do gain length.

If you are keeping the 18-55 kit lens - I presume it is the IS version - then I'd opt for the 28-135IS, you already have the 18-28mm covered by either the kit lens or moving back some (if poss) and the kit lens is small, compact and lightweight, it could easily fit in a pocket or handbag for those odd occasions it's needed.

 

[andyred]

but I suppose hasn't got the wider starting point. Thanks for the advice.:

Hi

I've attached a couple of photos my (then 14yr old) daughter took using the 28-135IS lens when she came to have a try at motorsport with me, just for an idea of the focal range etc, both photos were taken from the same spot, the 2nd one just 90 deg or so to the left...

I think she did a fantastic job and got some really good pictures with it, one thing she did find was towards the end of the day, it was getting a bit heavy for her (I took this as an excuse in advance in case her photos were no good ), but as I said, she was only 14 at the time.

Hope this is of some help...

 

[Prize78]

Between the 28-135 and the 17-85, IQ wise, I don't think there's a lot in it. I find that my 17-85 is on the camera a little more though as the wide end is useful in a lot of situations.

 

[aeronic]

I have the 18-135 and 18-55 and 55-250. The 55-250 is great. I don't think you'll get a better iq unless you go for the 17-55 or 15-85

 

[odd jim]

For what it's worth, the 55-250 IS is more than fast enough for outdoor sports.

I shot all sorts with the 55-250 which included some very fast motorsport and it was very good indeed. It's a fabulous lens.

In fact the I only reason I upgraded was because I needed f/2.8 for indoor stuff.

 

[JSER]

I have the 28-135 and would / will never part with it, for close up it is superb, it is truly built and a dream to use.

IF you are lucky look out for a 19-35 Cosina, it is an older lens but regarded by those who use it as a lens that will never date, the quality is good and this is proven by the £100 ish used price, I have one and will never part with it.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/COSINA-19...=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item1c200831ce

 

[big soft moose]

all the cosina lenses i have looked had laughably bad optics and the build quality of a british leyland car

i agree re the 28-135 though, thats a top lens - although its not wide enough at the short end on a crop body for general walking arround

 

[JSER]

all the cosina lenses i have looked had laughably bad optics and the build quality of a british leyland car

i agree re the 28-135 though, thats a top lens - although its not wide enough at the short end on a crop body for general walking arround

Now you see I have a Cosina and I have to say that it is superb, I suppose like all things, and I have heard it said about Nikon and Canon lenses, some can be bad, perhaps I am lucky and have a good one.

With old Canon 10D

 

[big soft moose]

it probably varies from model to model - i was unlucky enough to use a cosina 100-400 when i young and foolish - the build quality was terrible, and the optical quality was on par with shooting through a milk bottle

the front element fell off in the end

 

[just looking]

Some great advice guys, cheers to all of you!

You could save a little extra and go for the 15-85. I had one briefly and it is a very sharp lens with superb IS. I sold it as I already had a constant f2.8 lens in that range but the 15-85 was probably the better lens!

That almost doubles my budget! Maybe in future

Hi

I'd possibly say the 28-135IS, but it's not a definate clear cut choice - as you say you loose the wider ange, but you do gain length.

Thanks for the example images, definitely helpful. It sounds like the 28-135mm might be the one for me, as I'll be holding on the efficient 18-55mm.

For what it's worth, the 55-250 IS is more than fast enough for outdoor sports.

I shot all sorts with the 55-250 which included some very fast motorsport and it was very good indeed. It's a fabulous lens.

I agree it's a great lens, but I've found myself struggling at times trying to catch a shot of fast action. Say in the last rugby match I was at, if someone was running towards me or I was trying to shoot a tackle, it just didn't seem to lock quick enough.

I have the 28-135 and would / will never part with it, for close up it is superb, it is truly built and a dream to use.

Thanks for that, and the word about the Cosina, I'll keep an eye out. The Sigma 17-70mm also appears a very good option. But as I'm getting the Canon 28-135mm at what appears to be a very reasonable £270 at the moment, I think I'm pretty much decided.

Thanks for all the views so far!

 

[punkuate]

Yup, I've tried all of these with the exception of the 18-135. The lens that I use is the 28-135, I would say I probably use it about 90% of the time (its only taken off if I need something wider or shallower DOF)

 

[andyred]

as I'm getting the Canon 28-135mm at what appears to be a very reasonable £270 at the moment, I think I'm pretty much decided.

Thanks for all the views so far!

Hi

Have you tried Kerso on here, think he maybe slightly cheaper than this - don't know his current price, but worth an ask

 

[odd jim]

Some great advice guys, cheers to all of you!

That almost doubles my budget! Maybe in future

Thanks for the example images, definitely helpful. It sounds like the 28-135mm might be the one for me, as I'll be holding on the efficient 18-55mm.

***I agree it's a great lens, but I've found myself struggling at times trying to catch a shot of fast action. Say in the last rugby match I was at, if someone was running towards me or I was trying to shoot a tackle, it just didn't seem to lock quick enough.****

Thanks for that, and the word about the Cosina, I'll keep an eye out. The Sigma 17-70mm also appears a very good option. But as I'm getting the Canon 28-135mm at what appears to be a very reasonable £270 at the moment, I think I'm pretty much decided.

Thanks for all the views so far!

I take it youre using AI servo? A rugby tackle shouldn't be a problem for the 55-250. I had no problem tracking F1 cars at full pelt with mine!

I also have the 18-135 and much prefer it to the 28-135 I tried before I decided which to get. For me it's more useful as a walkabout as I wanted a wide end, and its nice and sharp with far better IS than the 28-135. The 28-135 feels more solid though and the 18-135 suffers with lens creep but other than that I love it.

 

[just looking]

I take it youre using AI servo? A rugby tackle shouldn't be a problem for the 55-250. I had no problem tracking F1 cars at full pelt with mine!

I also have the 18-135 and much prefer it to the 28-135 I tried before I decided which to get. For me it's more useful as a walkabout as I wanted a wide end, and its nice and sharp with far better IS than the 28-135. The 28-135 feels more solid though and the 18-135 suffers with lens creep but other than that I love it.

Hmm I think I may be making schoolboy errors in my focus settings. I tried using the AI servo a while back, but didn't use it enough to get the hang of it. Thanks for the word of advice, I'll definitely give it a go again. I bet I'll find that it's perfect...

Hi

Have you tried Kerso on here, think he maybe slightly cheaper than this - don't know his current price, but worth an ask

Sounds interesting, I've sent him an email. Thanks!



And punkuate, good to hear, thank you too.