Options
Canon lens for 20D
Poolak Banerjee
Registered Users Posts: 2 Beginner grinner
Hi,
I am new to this forum and I am Poolak from Yokohama. Japan. I have one EOS-55 wit 289-105, 100-300 and 17-40 lenses (all Canon). I have bought one 20D recently and keeping 17-40 as the walk-around lens for the 20D. In fact, I will get rid of EOS-55 (with 28-105 & 100-300) soon.
I would like to add one more lens for tele-zoom. My confusion is between 28-135 IS and 70-200 F4L. Everybddy (in other forums) is suggesting 70-200 but there are mixed comments about 28-135 IS.
Since I am hearing some different comments on 28-135 and most people are recommending EF70-200 F4L (the price is double than the 28-135), I am confused.
1) the price is high for 70-200mm (double than 28-135 in Japan)
2) it is heavier than 28-135
3) I miss 40 to 70 (i.e., 64 to 112 in DSLR) with 17-40 and 70-200 combination.
FYI, 70-200 f2.8L is out of my reach, way too costly....
Any guideline/suggestion on 28-135 versus 70-200?
Cheers,
Poolak
:dunno
I am new to this forum and I am Poolak from Yokohama. Japan. I have one EOS-55 wit 289-105, 100-300 and 17-40 lenses (all Canon). I have bought one 20D recently and keeping 17-40 as the walk-around lens for the 20D. In fact, I will get rid of EOS-55 (with 28-105 & 100-300) soon.
I would like to add one more lens for tele-zoom. My confusion is between 28-135 IS and 70-200 F4L. Everybddy (in other forums) is suggesting 70-200 but there are mixed comments about 28-135 IS.
Since I am hearing some different comments on 28-135 and most people are recommending EF70-200 F4L (the price is double than the 28-135), I am confused.
1) the price is high for 70-200mm (double than 28-135 in Japan)
2) it is heavier than 28-135
3) I miss 40 to 70 (i.e., 64 to 112 in DSLR) with 17-40 and 70-200 combination.
FYI, 70-200 f2.8L is out of my reach, way too costly....
Any guideline/suggestion on 28-135 versus 70-200?
Cheers,
Poolak
:dunno
0
Comments
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
What's there to be confused about? Nearly universal support for the 70-200, and mixed opinions about the 28-135. Given that one of the lenses is obviously superior, that should justify the added cost. And the fact one goes to 200mm at f/4, whereas the other goes only to 135mm at f/5.6 that justifies the extra weight and the extra cost.
No mystery. Its really rather simple.
The 28-135 lens is a fine lens, but it is not a great lens. The 70-200/4L is a great lens. The 28-135 also overlaps the 17-40 quite a bit. Lastly the gap from 40-70 could be easily served by the inexpensive 50/1.8, but you might not need it.
Do you NEED 200mm of reach? That is what is most important. If you don't need the reach, save the money and get the 28-135. But if you do need the reach, then the money saved by buying the 28-135 is actually money wasted by not buying the lens you need.
Lastly, don't expect the same image quality from the 28-135 that you get from the 17-40.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Thanks for your input. I am kind of biased for the 70-200 F4L, but how do I know "Do you need 200mm of reach"? Yes, I do take landscape and with my EOS-55, I was OK with my EF100-300 lens (that I am giving away with my EOS-55). In other forums, there are some 'problem' stories about 28-135 and they make me think against 28-135.
Yes, I do care to save the money but don't want to buy lenses again and again.
SOme of my colleagues are recommending 70-200 F2.8 (for low-light photography) but that is extremely heavy (I saw it today in the shop in Yokohama).
I, being an ameteur, do you think with my 17-40 and 70-200, I can cover the reasonable zone (17-40 being my walk-around one)?
Cheers,
Poolak
What type of pictures are you going to take?
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Hey, I have those, then a 300 Prime as I shoot/shot birds.
No, I don't think you will cover your needs completely. I myself feel the need to fill in. I sold my 28-135 when I got this L stuff. My 70-200 is not the IS f2.8, it is the slower, cheaper one. That is not the problem. I cannot be on top of the subject and use it. Also, I take church baptism photos. Currently I am using the 17-40 for that.
It has been so long since I could even dream of a lens to fill the gap, I have forgotten what I was looking at.
I do think those are fine lenses. The wide and the long you are talking about, but I think that one way or another you will want another.
If money is not an issue, I would get what is really going to work for you now. I mean I would get it now, if you end up not needing it, you can sell it for just a tad of a loss. Less than renting.
I love my 17-40, one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I would buy that again in a heartbeat. I don't know about the 70-200, maybe if it were the more expensive one. Or I would buy a medium lens...........I don't know, I would want very, very long because of what I do. And I would go for faster if I had the money, but the 17-40L no question but that I would buy it again.
I don't see that you would need wider or longer for landscapes, so that might do you, if you could get something else, too. I was looking at a Tamron, so good it was out of stock, or a sigma, don't remember exactly. One was a middle range and the other was like the 10-22, except much cheaper: and sold out. Now I am broke. (The Canon 50mm is an option lots of people like, I don't, but it comes cheap and L, many people are thrilled with either)
But you asked, so I thought I would throw what I know into the ring.
ginger