Canon / Sigma / Tamron Walk-around lense

[MassJester]

When in the parks, or vacationing in a city, what would you recommend for a "walk around lense." I've looked at the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM, but am wondering if it isn't too slow--particularly if I drop a polarization filter in front.

Any thoughts?

[Boss Hogg]

Personally I've got the Sigma 18-125 with my Canon 400D and have been very impressed by it's abilities and speed.

I also like having the wider end on this over the 28-135mm Canon. I've never had the Canon lens, but know someone who has, and they were not hugely impressed so, bought the Sigma.

[mabas9395]

I have the 28-135, When all I had was my kit lens, I thought it was great. After I got my 85mm f/1.8, I started to be less impressed with it. Although, it really isn't fair to compare a zoom to a prime.

The length is good for what I shoot and the IS is handy. But like you said, its not super fast, nor is it super sharp.

All in all, it is a fair lens and I would recommend it to anyone who hasn't tried a better lens.

Jan on these boards recently had to send her 28-135 in for repairs so she may have a different opinion.

[Metallicat]

I have the 28-135 and am not all that impressed with it. my pictures are never as sharp as I want them to be. I may end up selling it and getting something else. DD has the 17-40 L and that one takes GREAT pictures.

Just recently got the Sigma 10-22 and LOVE that lens! :thumbsup2

[jann1033]

it's a decent lens at a decent price, I don't know of a better one for the range and price and i haven't had a problem with sharpness, in fact some of my photos have been really sharp so it may depend on the copybut the is and mother board went ( and i didn't do anything, i'm careful with my lenses) in about 6 months...they fixed it for free( warranty) but whose to say it's not going to go out in another 7 months..
i think from now on i'm steering clear from the is. it's working fine now, still don't really care for the 135 end aperture..it's supposed to be 5.6 but seems slower to me..like I posted not to long ago i haven't been able to use it outside a few times during the day(??)it just won't take the photo, nothing, you can't press the shutter and i don't know if that had anything to do with the stuff they fixed or not. i haven't really used it since just to make sure it seemed to work. however i have also had problems with sigma so i don't know it is any worse than that. i'd probably go with the canon over sigma as at least it doesn't focus hunt every photo i take although some say if you hand pick you sigma copy you can get a good one.

i wish i had gotten the 70-200 f4 and something in a wider angle( not sure which) i love my phoenix 100mm macro( i know, i know the name stinks and it looks like a toy but i love the lens so it was the best $140 i've spent, more for just all around use than the macro side. the last few photos i 've posted have been with that lens while my other one was getting fixed and now i don't know if i want to go back to the canon:rotfl: ), the canon 50mm f1.8 is nice also( maybe i just like lenses that look like toys) so maybe i'd get those 2 and something wider than 50 and forget the wider end of the walk around until i had enough for the 24-70 f2.8 l... like in the yr 2200.:rotfl:

i'm editing this cause i just realized something...i have never had a problem using a cp on the 28-135( which you'd think if it was the aperture you would). chances are you won't be using a cp much in dark conditions anyway( so at 5.6) and the problems i did have taking the photos were outside with the lens facing the ground so i think it probably was the is causing the problem...i noticed before i sent it in it was when i had the camera lens down that it wouldn't take the photo and i did try that when i got it back and it took it fine...how long it works remains to be seen but didn't want to create a false impression about the aperture

one other caution imo you can't really compare a lens like the 28-135 with L glass that costs 3-4 xs as much..you get what you pay for to some degree so if it fits your budget, buy it, if you can afford L glass buy that. same with a prime, they usually are sharper but you don't have the range so you gotta pick your battles ;)

[MassJester]

I appreciate the detailed reply.

The price isn't what attracted me. It was definitely the range. From near wide angle to the ability to close some distance without a lense change -- that seemed very convenient.

What I'm looking for, in order, is (besides the obvious light weight, IS, 20mm-250mm f/1.8):

(prioritized most important to least)

versitility
portability (I want a lense, not a light sabre)
speed
quality construction
weight
reasonable price


I'll tell you honestly, researching all of these is real work.

[jann1033]

i'd say 1,2, 4(provided my is is a fluke, it's plastic but not that cheap brittle plastic) and 6 are covered...it's a little heavier than some but i don't find it a problem and i am a wimp. 3 unfortunatley you aren't going to do much better unless you get l glass, in fact lots are 4 or 4.5-5.6 so you are getting a little larger ap. here...look at the epcot japan thread egharty( sp) just put up..those are 28-135...i asked if they are canon then on reread saw the IS so they have to be.

[DDFan]

I typically carry 3 lens with me for the parks. My everyday lens is the Canon 28-105, I find this lens to be much sharper than the 28-135 and I use it for 90% of my shots. For low light I bring along the very cheap 50mm 1.8, excelent for those indoor shots where you don't want to use a flash. And for Animal Kingdom I bring the Sigma 70-300. None of the lens I bring are IS but I do bring my 430EX with diffuser for the parades.

[BorisMD]

The price is higher, but I think the overall quality and versatility point to the Canon 24-105 f/4L IS.

That's a great walk around lens.

I was at the local camera store the other day playing around with the Canon 70-300 f/4.5 IS and was really quite impressed with the IS. I did some trial shots of the security camera in the corner at the far end of the store, at 300mm, and was able to handhold with shutter speed as low at 1/6 second! That's impressive.

I'm a new poster on this forum, so can't post photo's to it yet, but will post a link to my shots from my trip in March. I'm renting the 24 - 105 L IS for the trip, and am really looking forward to seeing what it will do. It will also be my first chance to use an L lens.

Regards,

Boris

[carolina_yankee]

I use the the Tamorn 28-75 f/2.8 as my walk around. It's a great lens and covers most of what I want to do. I would like something wider, but my high criteria were speed and cost (quality being assumed).

In a perfect world, I would have chosen the Canon 17-85 IS, but it has gotten too many mixed reviews, so I augmented the Tammy with the Tokina 12-24 f/4! I don't use it as often, but I do enjoy it for the occasional wide angle that I really want to take.

For the most part the Tammy covers my Disney shots fairly well. I also use a 70-300 IS (great lens!) for some disntance shots across the World Showcase Lagoon and on the safari in AK.

I find the FredMiranda.com reviews (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/) to be very, very helpful.

Most of the shots in these two galleries were taken with the Tammy.

January 2007 (http://carolinayankee.smugmug.com/Walt%20Disney%20World%20Vacations/276558)

November 2006 ( (http://carolinayankee.smugmug.com/Walt%20Disney%20World%20Vacations/260741)a good mix of all 3 lenses, but photos still being added).

Dirk

[handicap18]

I appreciate the detailed reply.

The price isn't what attracted me. It was definitely the range. From near wide angle to the ability to close some distance without a lense change -- that seemed very convenient.

What I'm looking for, in order, is (besides the obvious light weight, IS, 20mm-250mm f/1.8):

(prioritized most important to least)

versitility
portability (I want a lense, not a light sabre)
speed
quality construction
weight
reasonable price


I'll tell you honestly, researching all of these is real work.

Unfortunately this lens doesn't exist. Closest ones would be a 17-55mm f/2.8 (though pricy and not very long), Nikon's 18-200mm VR (not terribly pricy, but not very wide), Sigma & Tamron have the 18-200 though with no VR/IS and they're very slow at the 200mm range (f/6.3), Sigma has a 17-70mm thats not bad at f/2.8-4.5. I think Tamron is coming out with an 18-250, but I can only imagine what the f/stop would be at the 250mm range (f/7.1 or even f/8 considering the 18-200 if f/6.3 at the 200mm end) so I don't know how useful it really would be. Tamron has the Bigma 50-500mm that definately would cover a lot of range but it starts at 50mm and it is BIG. Many have had success with the Sigma 18-125mm as a walk around lens though no IS and not very wide.

No matter how you slice it your at least going to have to go with 2 lenses, maybe more depending your personal style, needs and wants. Last trip I went with 3, the next trip I'll have at least 4, most likely 5, 3 of which would be primes. Yes I can see myself using all 5 different lenses, some not as often, but I would use all 5.

Good luck

[handicap18]

I'm a new poster on this forum, so can't post photo's to it yet, but will post a link to my shots from my trip in March. I'm renting the 24 - 105 L IS for the trip, and am really looking forward to seeing what it will do. It will also be my first chance to use an L lens.

Regards,

Boris

Boris, you have more than 10 posts on Dis, therefor you can post photos to any forum topic in the Disboards.

[jann1033]

i read on another forum sigma is coming out with a( their version of) IS 18-200(?)..if you want to wait a while( like a yr i think:lmao: )

[BorisMD]

Boris, you have more than 10 posts on Dis, therefor you can post photos to any forum topic in the Disboards.

Oh, thanks.

My thing on the bottom left says I may not post attachments.

Could you point me in the direction of where I find instructions on how to post photos?

Sorry for the ignorance.

Thanks,

Boris

[boBQuincy]

Canon's 24-105 meets most of your criteria, except maybe weight and price. If $1200 is in your price range it is a very good walkabout lens, and is the one I use the most.

[handicap18]

Oh, thanks.

My thing on the bottom left says I may not post attachments.

Could you point me in the direction of where I find instructions on how to post photos?

Sorry for the ignorance.

Thanks,

Boris

I'm guessing that the attachments are something different as mine says the same thing.

For photos, many use photobucket.com to upload their photos from their computer. Then once the photos are there they have a tag line setup for 1 click copy (the line that starts with and ends with ). You copy it from there and paste it here in your post. Other sites used alot are flickr & smugmug amoung others.

[BorisMD]

Okay, I did the photobucket thing.

Here's a sample to see if it works.

By the way, this was with a 10-20 Sigma. Very fun lens

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q55/BorisMD9/chocomickey.jpg

Thanks,

Boris

[jann1033]

oh never mind, didn't go to page 2 again...the blonde part might be fake, but the air head part is real

[MassJester]

Canon's 24-105 meets most of your criteria, except maybe weight and price. If $1200 is in your price range it is a very good walkabout lens, and is the one I use the most.

I've heard good things about this one, and it is very high on my list.

[Groucho]

No matter how you slice it your at least going to have to go with 2 lenses, maybe more depending your personal style, needs and wants. Last trip I went with 3, the next trip I'll have at least 4, most likely 5, 3 of which would be primes. Yes I can see myself using all 5 different lenses, some not as often, but I would use all 5.
Hmm, that sounds familiar. :rolleyes1 :lmao: I did take six, but the sixth went unused, and the other five (2 zooms, three primes) all got usage - and if my Sigma 28mm 2.8 was autofocus, I'd have barely used the zoom lenses at all. I love them primes!

[jann1033]

i feel the need to mention this even though i think the 28-135 is no longer being considered...

i took my "fixed" copy out yesterday to shoot,first time i really have used it since i got it back. and i don't know what canon did to it but it now rivals my old sigma as the worse lens i have ever used. The is is working fine, no more problem with the not focusing or whatever was causing it to not take shots but now it is so soft it is unusable...i don't know if it is still not focusing correctly or what but now it also has blue and red shadowing around strong contrast places( maybe chromation..don't believe i have ever seen that so don't know for sure)it never had before. so i don't know if the factory specs they set it to are horrendous or what but i got rid of it and am just buying my 70-200f4 and being done with it.

so my feelings about this lens is if you get a "bad" copy ie not set to factory specs, it's good but if it's the way canon intends it it is awful...it kind of bums me out as it is forcing me to buy another wider lens now instead of later unless i just use the kit lens for anything below 50( can use my 50 1.8 also for that range)

[0bli0]

i generally carry several lenses, but my walk-around lens is usually the 24-70 2.8L. i'll usually carry the 50 1.4 for low light, a lensbaby, and then one or more of the following, depending on what else i'm shooting on that trip: 135 2.0L, 12-24 EX, 85mm 1.8, and/or the 15mm fisheye. i never bring anything longer than 135 to the parks
on my one of my trips last year - to Hong Kong Disneyland (http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/hkdl1206/index.html), the 24-70 was the only lens i had with me and i was completely happy with the results.

off topic: Jan - i'd definitely send it back with some example photos and a description of your experience. even though i don't use it on my body, my dw has very good shot IQ with her 28-135 and the IS is great to compensate for her heavy shutterfinger movement. it's also proving to work very well for my daughter's useage as she's learning.

[jann1033]

i generally carry several lenses, but my walk-around lens is usually the 24-70 2.8L. i'll usually carry the 50 1.4 for low light, a lensbaby, and then one or more of the following, depending on what else i'm shooting on that trip: 135 2.0L, 12-24 EX, 85mm 1.8, and/or the 15mm fisheye. i never bring anything longer than 135 to the parks
on my one of my trips last year - to Hong Kong Disneyland (http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/hkdl1206/index.html), the 24-70 was the only lens i had with me and i was completely happy with the results.

off topic: Jan - i'd definitely send it back with some example photos and a description of your experience. even though i don't use it on my body, my dw has very good shot IQ with her 28-135 and the IS is great to compensate for her heavy shutterfinger movement. it's also proving to work very well for my daughter's useage as she's learning.

yeah, i don't get it as i was happy with the shots before the motherboard and IS died. i'd had enough shipping it back and forth so i just traded it in and they are going to give me trade in $$ for the 70-200f4 lens...it looks perfect and now "works" perfect just takes horrendously soft photos:sad2: . i think you can get a good or bad copy cause i'd looked up a bunch of reviews and they seemed split down the middle...now if the new lens is bad as well...well let's say it must not be the lens but the nut holding the camera that's the problem:rolleyes1

[BorisMD]

i generally carry several lenses, but my walk-around lens is usually the 24-70 2.8L. i'll usually carry the 50 1.4 for low light, a lensbaby, and then one or more of the following, depending on what else i'm shooting on that trip: 135 2.0L, 12-24 EX, 85mm 1.8, and/or the 15mm fisheye.

The lensbaby?! I've seen this advertised. How do you like this? Could you post some examples of what you've done with it?

Thanks,

Boris

[handicap18]

i generally carry several lenses, but my walk-around lens is usually the 24-70 2.8L. i'll usually carry the 50 1.4 for low light, a lensbaby, and then one or more of the following, depending on what else i'm shooting on that trip: 135 2.0L, 12-24 EX, 85mm 1.8, and/or the 15mm fisheye. i never bring anything longer than 135 to the parks
on my one of my trips last year - to Hong Kong Disneyland (http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/hkdl1206/index.html), the 24-70 was the only lens i had with me and i was completely happy with the results.

Awesome DL HK pics 0bli0. I really enjoyed viewing them. Its nice to see some of the other parks every now and then. Thanks for sharing. :thumbsup2

[MassJester]

Has anyone used the Canon 24-105/4 IS?

[Master Mason]

Has anyone used the Canon 24-105/4 IS?


Bob said above that it is his most used lens

[boBQuincy]

Has anyone used the Canon 24-105/4 IS?

I have had mine for about a year now, and use it more than any other lens (which is a lot). Canon has had some trouble making them right, my 1st one went back (not sharp) and the 2nd one was sent in for repair twice (it is very good now but I still feel it should be a little sharper).

The lens is larger than I expected and fairly heavy, with a 30D it is right at 3 lbs. It also uses battery power more quickly than a non IS lens (one battery usually does not last me all day anymore).

What other lens would I use? Maybe a 24-70 but that doesn't have IS and it really works well so the 24-105 is going to stay on my camera.

[0bli0]

The lensbaby?! I've seen this advertised. How do you like this? Could you post some examples of what you've done with it?


i love it. i have both a 2.0 and now a 3g.

here are some from the 2.0 with no processing other than mono conversion in the first two:

http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/2006/2006__T2A4925-Version2.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/_T2A3965-Version2.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/weekly/weekly_T2A6724.jpg

and here is one with the 3g (has lockable and finely adjustable focus)
http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/tempy/cooking_T2A8669.jpg

[0bli0]

Awesome DL HK pics 0bli0. I really enjoyed viewing them. Its nice to see some of the other parks every now and then. Thanks for sharing. :thumbsup2

no worries and thank you very much. btw you can see other parks by going up to the main Disney page (http://homepage.mac.com/imagetechphoto/disney/)

[BorisMD]

Oblio,

Those lensbaby photos are fantastic. I was looking through your galleries on your .mac pages, and am curious, are all of the f/2.8 pictures taken with the lensbaby or with one of the other primes?

Conversely, are you just shooting most photos at the wider aperture to get the shallower depth of field?

Also, I looked at the lensbaby website. I must say, I'm getting obsessed with it.

Regards,

Boris

[0bli0]

Boris,

thank you very much!
the lensbaby is a completely manual lens so it does not provide any EXIF data. so the aperture and focal length doesn't show up on the lensbaby photos. most all of the images on my pages taken @ f/2.8 are taken using the 24-70 2.8L

to answer the second part of your question - i shoot wider apertures when i want the shallow depth of field. this is usually when i'm closer to an object or if i'm taking a photo of a person. sometimes i'll stop down a bit, depending on what i want to have in the depth of field, to compose accordingly.

on the lensbaby 2.0 i generally tend to use the 4.0 aperture ring. it can be very difficult to find the sweetspot without a focussing screen using the f/2.0 ring. it's much easier on the lensbaby 3g since you can make small changes easily.