Any advice on a good "budget lens" for a dSLR?

[Sonno]

Then if you're thinking short term, don't waste your money on the 28-135 but get the Sigma 18-125 instead. It's only about US$250 shipped.

Any reason other than the price?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

the reason I stated previously, 28mm is a no-go for me. It's just not wide enough, especially for Disney.

From my past trips to Disney, I tend to use the 17-24 and the 70-125 range of the lens and nothing in between.

 

[Sonno]

Definitely something to take into consideration. Thanks!

I'd really like to get the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ($600) in addition to the other 2, but I don't know if I can afford all three before the trip.

 

[handicap18]

For short term, I would not go with the 28-135 unless you are going to be using a film SLR. while it does have a very good range, it really doesn't work well for a dSLR that is not full frame. For my Nikon I have a 28-90 and a 28-85 and have not used either one since getting my D50. I went and got the 18-70 and use it almost exclusively. I take a lot of pics in the 18-30 range. As for walking around Disney with just the 28mm at the wide end you might find yourself spending of lot of extra time looking behind you to see how much further you can back up.

Think about it this way, for a film SLR would you buy a 45-215mm zoom lens or a 28-200mm?

 

[Sonno]

Ohh I see the points and merits, and I do agree. The Sigma 18-125 would more than likely be my best option here. If I can't afford both the 10-22 and the 28-135, then that's what I'll be going with.

 

[chrisney]

If you're really planning the move up to the D1MK2, why are you considering a lens that is so consumer oriented? (referring to the 28-135) If you're planning on sinking that money into a camera, I'd sure want lenses equal to it.

I just passed the 28-135 on to my husband, with some sadness. It was the very first lens I bought when I got the 10D, and I got some good shots with it. I now have the 5D, and it almost demands "L" lenses. Replaced the 28-135 with the 24-105 L after much debate with myself and the guy in the store. Had both the 24-70 and 24-105 in my hands...hard choice. Went with the slight amount of increased versitility that the added length gives. Also have the 17-40 L, the 70-200 L and the 100-400 L, so I think I'm covered for a while.

In my opinion, whatever body you buy is going to last you 2, maybe 3 years if you're lucky and not too impatient. The lenses you buy will, with luck last you years. I'm so glad I didn't get so impatient that I bought the EF-S lenses for the 20D because while it is my backup body now, it's rarely used.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

The Sigma 18-125 is more than just a 'decent' lens. Here are some sample pics taken using it, no post processing.

 

[Mellie0119]

I just bought the 28-235mm IS Canon lens (before reading enough reviews) and while it's nice- it's true- it's just not wide enough on the Rebel XT- I find myself having to step back a bit too often. It's not the end of the world- it has great range, and now I've got an excuse to get a nice wide angle lens. I'll be using the 28-135 on my next trip, but carrying the kit lens too just in case I need a little bit more "room".

 

[jann1033]

not trying to derail but can't get the new thread to work( like 80% of the rest of the board)

is there any alternative to the sigma 18-200 that does not cost much over that same price? i saw some examples and thought some of the shots really blurry compared to the 18-125 but would like to have one lens for that range if possible ( which i am guessing is not possible but thought i'd ask just in case)

 

[mhutchinson]

Tamron offers the same range with a 6 year USA warranty as well at about the same price. It does not have the focus problems that have been reported with the Sigma when zooming over the 135mm on Canon mounts; of course workaround for the Sigma is to focus at 135 and zoom in. It does have a plastic mount though which is a soft spot for some, but it is very light.

Just another alternative.


Mike

 

[mhutchinson]

I just bought the 28-135mm IS Canon lens (before reading enough reviews) and while it's nice- it's true- it's just not wide enough on the Rebel XT- I find myself having to step back a bit too often. It's not the end of the world- it has great range, and now I've got an excuse to get a nice wide angle lens. I'll be using the 28-135 on my next trip, but carrying the kit lens too just in case I need a little bit more "room".

I have been very happy with mine and find that the images are very well saturated, clear, and don't have any issues with barrel distortion or CA. I agree it would be better if it went wider, but then it would probably suffer in another way. For my shooting style I like it as my prefered walk around lens, I also found 20mm was the sweet spot I mised from time to time. So I picked up a prime in that range, it is a small and compact prime (and fast), so I carry it with the other lens without it taking too much space. The 18-55mm kit lens is always a nice alternative as you said. I think that it is a very much under-rated lens and I am always shocked at some of the pictures I get with mine (use it always for family gatherings).

Mike

 

[Kelly Grannell]

That's why I'm using 18-125 only. There is no 18-200 that's acceptable for my taste (they are good enough for 4x6 only, even then I can already see CA. I'm referring to Sigma, Tamron and Nikon).

The only reason I'll be okay with the Nikon 18-200 is the VR feature. But for sure I can't use it for pro application (whereas the Sigma 18-125 have been used for many pro apps from fashion photography all the way down to weddings).

 

[Sonno]

The Sigma 18-125 is more than just a 'decent' lens. Here are some sample pics taken using it, no post processing.

Sweet photos! Ok, ok... you've convinced me. What camera were you using?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

For those pictures I used a lowly Canon dRebel. (not RebelXT).

 

[WillCAD]

I agree with Mike, the 18-55 kit lens I got with my 300D is quite nice. I took it to WDW on my last trip and got some wonderful shots with it.

But I recently bought the excellent Sigma 18-125 that Kelly is always touting, and I have also gotten some great shots from it. I can't wait to take it to WDW and give it a real workout.

[click any pic for full-size version]

 

[Mellie0119]

I have been very happy with mine and find that the images are very well saturated, clear, and don't have any issues with barrel distortion or CA. I agree it would be better if it went wider, but then it would probably suffer in another way. For my shooting style I like it as my prefered walk around lens, I also found 20mm was the sweet spot I mised from time to time. So I picked up a prime in that range, it is a small and compact prime (and fast), so I carry it with the other lens without it taking too much space. The 18-55mm kit lens is always a nice alternative as you said. I think that it is a very much under-rated lens and I am always shocked at some of the pictures I get with mine (use it always for family gatherings).

Mike

Oh, I agree- aside from the lack of width- this is an excellent lens- my pictures look great- I think it's a combination of the lens and all the reading and learning I've been doing.

Just a little thanks to all who post on this board for their great help and info- your willingness to share really helps people like me learn to be better photographers.

 

[JCTurner]

Hi all

I agree on the lack of width with the 28-135IS. While not particularly budget priced (well it is compared to an L Series) I bough the Sigma 10-20 for the Ultrawide / Wide range and so far am very happy with it - I'm back in the House of the Mouse from Wednesday of this week (thats been a quick 5 months since booking !) so hope to get some good shots.

Cheers

JC