Canon Lense Upgrade!!!

travischance

I'm considering purchasing another lens for my Rebel XSi. I'm looking @:

Canon 24-105 f/4 L,
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Which would you consider as an upgrade from the 18-55mm IS & 75-300mm kit lenses? Thanks!!!

cmason

uncletrav wrote:

I'm considering purchasing another lens for my Rebel XSi. I'm looking @:

Canon 24-105 f/4 L,
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Which would you consider as an upgrade from the 18-55mm IS & 75-300mm kit lenses? Thanks!!!

All of them are an upgrade from the kit lens. The 24-105L is a different class of lens, and is basically the 'ultimate' on your list. If you can afford it and justify it, then buy it, you will never regret it.

Between the 17-85 and the 28-135...they are roughly equivalent. The 28-135 ships as the kit lens for the 40D and 50D. The difference is range, with the 28-135 being longer and the 17-85 being wider. Typically, the wider lenses are preferred on 'crop' cameras like the Xsi and 40/50D. The 28-135 has the very small benefit of being a full frame compatible lens, should you ever go that direction.

None of these replaces the range of your 70-300 lens. Good candidates for that are the:

70-300IS
70-200 f/4 L (IS version available)
70-200 f/2.8 L (IS version available)


These are in order from least to most expensive, and you get what you pay for. The 70-300IS is a prosumer lens, the others are 'pro' lenses (L lenses, like the 24-105 L above). The 70-300 IS is a significant upgrade from the kit lens, but IMHO, and in my personal testing, the 70-200 f/4 is a much sharper, though not as long lens. The 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4 are priced about the same, so in this case you decide if you want a shorter "L" lens vs a longer IS standard lens.

Beyond those two, the pricing gets above $1000, and need sorta goes out the window!

travischance

Thanks cmason (a fellow north carolinian)!!! I'm definitely going to purchase the 24-105 b/c it's an L series and everyone says its one of the best! The 28-135 seemed to get pretty good reviews as well but I'm definitely leaning toward the ultimate lens.

cmason wrote:

All of them are an upgrade from the kit lens. The 24-105L is a different class of lens, and is basically the 'ultimate' on your list. If you can afford it and justify it, then buy it, you will never regret it.

Between the 17-85 and the 28-135...they are roughly equivalent. The 28-135 ships as the kit lens for the 40D and 50D. The difference is range, with the 28-135 being longer and the 17-85 being wider. Typically, the wider lenses are preferred on 'crop' cameras like the Xsi and 40/50D. The 28-135 has the very small benefit of being a full frame compatible lens, should you ever go that direction.

None of these replaces the range of your 70-300 lens. Good candidates for that are the:

70-300IS
70-200 f/4 L (IS version available)
70-200 f/2.8 L (IS version available)


These are in order from least to most expensive, and you get what you pay for. The 70-300IS is a prosumer lens, the others are 'pro' lenses (L lenses, like the 24-105 L above). The 70-300 IS is a significant upgrade from the kit lens, but IMHO, and in my personal testing, the 70-200 f/4 is a much sharper, though not as long lens. The 70-300 IS and the 70-200 f/4 are priced about the same, so in this case you decide if you want a shorter "L" lens vs a longer IS standard lens.

Beyond those two, the pricing gets above $1000, and need sorta goes out the window!

divamum

Take a look at the Tamron 17-50. Nope, it's not an L or even a Canon, but it is a FANTASTIC lens - I absolutely love it with my xsi, and what you save with that you can put towards replacing your long lens (it's about $425 new, and you can find a decent used copy for less).

My copy (purchased like-new w/all documentation, but for a very attractive $300 via Craigslist) is supersharp and a good (and fast) focuser and I love it.

If you want to go only the Canon route, the EFs17-55is is highly praised, although about twice the cost of the Tamron.

Scott_Quier

divamum wrote:

If you want to go only the Canon route, the EFs17-55is is highly praised, although about twice the cost of the Tamron.

And I'm one of those that sing the praises of the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS - a very sweet lens.

Opinions differ, but many (most) agree the optics in this lens are of "L" quality. The build is a bit less so. I've had to send mine into Canon to have the zoom assembly replaced. Others have had to have the IS component replaced or to have bit of dust/crud removed from within the objective element.

Would I buy this lens all over again if I had the choice between it and the 24-70 f/2.8 L? Ummm .... Yup.

Would I buy this lens before I bought the 24-105 f/4L? Ummmm .... Yup.

cmason

uncletrav wrote:

Thanks cmason (a fellow north carolinian)!!! I'm definitely going to purchase the 24-105 b/c it's an L series and everyone says its one of the best! The 28-135 seemed to get pretty good reviews as well but I'm definitely leaning toward the ultimate lens.

For what its worth, the 24-105L is my most wanted lens as well. I went with the Tamron 28-75 to start with, and it is also a wonderful sharp lens, well worth the $$. I want the 24-105 because of the L, and because of the length, which I use more than wide. Plus I am delighted with my Sigma 10-20, so I don't really need the wide. Despite its reviews, I am not eager to spend the $$ on the 17-55 f2.8IS, since it is not great build quality, and it is a crop lens. If am going to spend a $1000+ on a lens, it better last a lifetime or two, and I fully expect full frame to be something I do eventually.

One thing you may wish to check out is the size of these lenses. This may not bother you, but I tried the 24-70 f2.8L on my old XT, and the camera looked like tiny toy attached to that lens. The 24-105 L is smaller, but only slightly. The XSi will be the camera attached to the lens, vs the other way around. Not really a bad thing, but it bothered me when I tried them. They look much more 'normal' on a 40D.

Candid Arts

uncletrav wrote:

I'm considering purchasing another lens for my Rebel XSi. I'm looking @:

Canon 24-105 f/4 L,
Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Which would you consider as an upgrade from the 18-55mm IS & 75-300mm kit lenses? Thanks!!!

The 24-105 is an amazing lens (being an owner of one). It's like the perfect walk around lens. Just loves the light.

If you're looking at the L series glass, and the 17-85...why not look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? It's near L quality, fixed f/2.8, built better, and a bit sharper as well. This will probably be my next lens purchase. As Tamron makes some good lenses, and I've heard nothing but great about the 17-50, I prefer to stick with Canon lenses myself. Plus...you get the little extra 5mm:ivar of focal length... I'm also not sure if the Tamron 17-50 has their version of Image Stabilization or not...so that might be a deciding factor as well.

The 28-135 I believe to be an amateur quality lens. Usually when you get a lens with a wider range in focal length, IQ starts to degrade, build integrity starts to degrade, both of which things I'm not willing to invest in.

travischance

I actually own the Tamron 18-270 VR lens now and it's really good at telephoto...very slow AF and fairly loud. In essence, my camera is attached to the lens not the other way around. For the price of the 17-55 @ $1000, it seems to make more sense with the extra 50mm of zoom....

Candid Arts wrote:

The 24-105 is an amazing lens (being an owner of one). It's like the perfect walk around lens. Just loves the light.

If you're looking at the L series glass, and the 17-85...why not look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM? It's near L quality, fixed f/2.8, built better, and a bit sharper as well. This will probably be my next lens purchase. As Tamron makes some good lenses, and I've heard nothing but great about the 17-50, I prefer to stick with Canon lenses myself. Plus...you get the little extra 5mm:ivar of focal length... I'm also not sure if the Tamron 17-50 has their version of Image Stabilization or not...so that might be a deciding factor as well.

The 28-135 I believe to be an amateur quality lens. Usually when you get a lens with a wider range in focal length, IQ starts to degrade, build integrity starts to degrade, both of which things I'm not willing to invest in.

GSPeP

I had the 28-135IS on my old 300D (Digital rebel) but replaced it with the Tamron 18-270 VC. The Digital Rebel is the camera I almost always take with me on motorcycle tours. Pictures with the 28-135IS were not bad, but are better with the Tamron.

On my 5D the 24-105L IS is the standard lens.

I have tried the 28-135IS on my 1D MkIII but those pictures were bad in my opinion, so I bought a second 24-105L.

jeffreaux2

All of those are too long at the wide end for the XT series of cameras, except for the 17-85. Unfortunately the 17-85 isn't known for it's image quality.

Bar none, the 17-55 F2.8IS is the best lense suited for Canons crop sensor cameras.