Discuss Canon Lenses!

[GlockSpock]

So, in a nutshell, I have a Canon T3i with the following lenses:

• 18-55mm IS II EF-S (Kit lens)
• 55-250mm IS II EF-S
• 50mm 1.4 USM EF  (My favorite lens so far)

Now, last night I ordered th 28-135mm USM because it is $299 on Amazon and typically is $479-$500. My plan was to sell the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses that I already own, consolodating to what I would probably "use the most" from both of them. However, I canceled that order and removed the items from here and Ebay that were for sale. I am awfully tempted, mainly because buying and opening a brand new lens has a certain "awwweeee yes!" factor to it. Now, the 28-135 USM has manual override, metal mount, and a USM, all of which are nice to have. It is also "EF" instead of "EF-S" (you can use EF mounts on full-frame cameras). Now, overall I would like to only own "EF" lenses because I do want to someday get a 6d or comparible.

 

But I canceled the order because honestly I hadn't done as much research as I usually do (I spent weeks researching the 50mm 1.4 before I decided to buy it.

 

Now, Ken Rockwell rates this lens as a great lens, but the review is a bit dated (although it is the same lens).

 

So, just wanted any availible input on here as to whether I should jump on that lens at $299 and try to get $250 or so out of my other two lenses. One thing I am noticing is that I like prime lenses and would really like a macro lens. That being said...I'd also like an "L" lens. ;

 

If I were to buy the 28-135, it would be for "consolodation" of the two lenses I would sell, as well as future proofing to the "EF" mount. I guess the make or break deal would purely be glass quality compared to the 18-55 and 55-250 at the comparible focal lengths. I read something that suggested the two lenses mentioned are typically sharper at the same focal length than the 28-135. But you can read anything on the internet!

[VERO1]

I have found the website slrgear.com very helpful in my research. They have tests and reviews on just about any piece of equipment made in the last 20 years or so. I have just switched from Canon to Nikon so I have been reading their reviews pretty frequently. Don't be afraid to consider a lens from Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. Some of these lenses preform better than the system lenses for a fraction of the price.

[peejman]

That 28-135 has been on my list for a while and $300 is a good price.  It certainly seems like a very good "general use" lens.  Something a little faster would be nice (like the 24-70 2.8), but man the prices skyrocket into unaffordium territory in a hurry. 

 

I've got access to the 60mm macro lens at work.  It's great at what it does, but I'd think the 50mm 1.4 would do 90% of what the 60mm macro will do.  A friend has the 100mm macro (got it on ebay for a song, the schmuck) and it seems more flexible and the price reflects that.  If you get a macro, the ring-light flash is a must.  A speedlite is too far off axis for close-ups unless you go remote. 

 

I would agree that, in theory, the 18-55 and 50-250 might be fractionally better in their respective sweet spots than the 28-135 is at those same lengths.  But the 28-135 has it's own sweet spot too, and I'm not good enough to tell the difference anyway. 

[10-Ring]

I use that 28-135mm lens for 90% of what I do.  I also own an L-series 70-200mm but it rarely gets the nod, to the point that I usually don't even pack it when going on a trip when I'm just taking the camera without a particular objective.  If this lens had the ability to shoot at 1.8 or even 2.8 I would like it a whole lot more, that's my biggest complaint about it. 

 

Just for price reference I got my lens in a package deal a couple of years ago I gave $350 for it and two Tamron lenses that were worth maybe $150ish for both.

Edited January 16, 2015 by 10-Ring

[tnguy]

So, in a nutshell, I have a Canon T3i with the following lenses:

• 18-55mm IS II EF-S (Kit lens)
• 55-250mm IS II EF-S
• 50mm 1.4 USM EF  (My favorite lens so far)

Now, last night I ordered th 28-135mm USM because it is $299 on Amazon and typically is $479-$500. My plan was to sell the 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses that I already own, consolodating to what I would probably "use the most" from both of them. However, I canceled that order and removed the items from here and Ebay that were for sale. I am awfully tempted, mainly because buying and opening a brand new lens has a certain "awwweeee yes!" factor to it. Now, the 28-135 USM has manual override, metal mount, and a USM, all of which are nice to have. It is also "EF" instead of "EF-S" (you can use EF mounts on full-frame cameras). Now, overall I would like to only own "EF" lenses because I do want to someday get a 6d or comparible.

 

But I canceled the order because honestly I hadn't done as much research as I usually do (I spent weeks researching the 50mm 1.4 before I decided to buy it.

 

Now, Ken Rockwell rates this lens as a great lens, but the review is a bit dated (although it is the same lens).

 

So, just wanted any availible input on here as to whether I should jump on that lens at $299 and try to get $250 or so out of my other two lenses. One thing I am noticing is that I like prime lenses and would really like a macro lens. That being said...I'd also like an "L" lens. ;

 

If I were to buy the 28-135, it would be for "consolodation" of the two lenses I would sell, as well as future proofing to the "EF" mount. I guess the make or break deal would purely be glass quality compared to the 18-55 and 55-250 at the comparible focal lengths. I read something that suggested the two lenses mentioned are typically sharper at the same focal length than the 28-135. But you can read anything on the internet!

 

I have the first two lenses you list (same camera) and I think the 50mm is on my "to buy" list (Actually, it's the 40) but this is the next one I think I'm getting. In theory, I should have pulled the trigger on it already...

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002LTXQUE/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=25KWVG8UPYJBZ&coliid=I2UZDYKC7VS73Q&psc=1

 

For some reason I also have an 18-55 lens in my wishlist too. Can't remember what that's about.

[GlockSpock]

I have found the website slrgear.com very helpful in my research. They have tests and reviews on just about any piece of equipment made in the last 20 years or so. I have just switched from Canon to Nikon so I have been reading their reviews pretty frequently. Don't be afraid to consider a lens from Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. Some of these lenses preform better than the system lenses for a fraction of the price.

 

Nikon? This is the Canon thread! :squint: Thanks for the website! I'll take a look. I've thought about after market lenses before but honestely never bought one.

 

That 28-135 has been on my list for a while and $300 is a good price.  It certainly seems like a very good "general use" lens.  Something a little faster would be nice (like the 24-70 2.8), but man the prices skyrocket into unaffordium territory in a hurry. 

 

I've got access to the 60mm macro lens at work.  It's great at what it does, but I'd think the 50mm 1.4 would do 90% of what the 60mm macro will do.  A friend has the 100mm macro (got it on ebay for a song, the schmuck) and it seems more flexible and the price reflects that.  If you get a macro, the ring-light flash is a must.  A speedlite is too far off axis for close-ups unless you go remote. 

 

I would agree that, in theory, the 18-55 and 50-250 might be fractionally better in their respective sweet spots than the 28-135 is at those same lengths.  But the 28-135 has it's own sweet spot too, and I'm not good enough to tell the difference anyway. 

 

If I'm getting a macro I think I will get 100mm. If I get a 100mm macro, I may as well spend the extra few bills and go L. Whoa! How's that T3i holding up for you?

 

I use that 28-135mm lens for 90% of what I do.  I also own an L-series 70-200mm but it rarely gets the nod, to the point that I usually don't even pack it when going on a trip when I'm just taking the camera without a particular objective.  If this lens had the ability to shoot at 1.8 or even 2.8 I would like it a whole lot more, that's my biggest complaint about it. 

 

Just for price reference I got my lens in a package deal a couple of years ago I gave $350 for it and two Tamron lenses that were worth maybe $150ish for both.

 

So you are saying it's a pretty great lens but even at $300 isn't a "steal" seeing as how it is a kit lens for some of the higher end cameras or can be had in a "bundle" from Amazon/etc for ~$200 or so? Do you feel it would be a great "alternate" lens compared to having the kit 18-55 and 55-250 that I own? Would it be worth selling them and buying the 28-135 and pulling $50 or $100 out of pocket to go with it or just keep what I have for now?

 

I have the first two lenses you list (same camera) and I think the 50mm is on my "to buy" list (Actually, it's the 40) but this is the next one I think I'm getting. In theory, I should have pulled the trigger on it already...

 

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002LTXQUE/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=25KWVG8UPYJBZ&coliid=I2UZDYKC7VS73Q&psc=1

 

For some reason I also have an 18-55 lens in my wishlist too. Can't remember what that's about.

 

Well...if you want an 18-55 IS II, I know where you can find one:) I speak very highly of the 50mm 1.4. Although, the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens even though it doesn't go as wide. I believe optically it may actually take better photos in certain scenarios. But I bought the 50mm 1.4 at $300 and it is by far my favorite lens as of now. I had the 50mm 1.8 but didn't like it as much.

[2.ooohhh]

The 28-135 is fragile, I've been through 2 of them, but I'm known to be rough on equipment with what I used to shoot. Quality of the shots was good for the price though while they lasted. Upgraded to a 24-70L f2.8 which is a tank by comparison, but it's heavy as well, so each has it's own advantages.

[GlockSpock]

The 28-135 is fragile, I've been through 2 of them, but I'm known to be rough on equipment with what I used to shoot. Quality of the shots was good for the price though while they lasted. Upgraded to a 24-70L f2.8 which is a tank by comparison, but it's heavy as well, so each has it's own advantages.

 

That's the one downside to the 50mm 1.4 that I've read....but thankfully not yet experienced. Supposedly the 50mm 1.4 has a "delicate" AF system. I try to take care of my stuff but I also want a fairly expensive item to be quite well built.

[tnguy]

I find the kit lens is fine for quite a lot of what I do so changing the lens to zoom in is not usually a big deal. Usually though I'm trying to fit more into my pictures, not less hence the fish-eye. It may be just a little bit more angle than I actually need but I can think of some things I can use it for.

[2.ooohhh]

the 50 f1.4 is more robust(primes usually are) than the 28-135. Both my breaks were due to it the zoom gears stripping due to knocks or falls while extended. CPS wanted more than I had in the first one to fix it, I never bothered sending in the second.

[10-Ring]

Yeah CPS has gotten a lot more stupid in the past year or so.  I remember when I could send a camera in Tuesday night and it would be back at my door Thursday morning properly fixed for a pretty dang good price.  Those days are gone.  Anymore it seems to be wait a week, pay a lot and I've sent bodies back as many as 4 times without them being properly repaired.  I got out of doing photography full time about a year ago and just do it part time now.  Dealing with CPS can just about put a photographer out of business.

[TGO David]

I run a 24-70mm f/2.8L as my primary "walk around" lens and it does 90% of what  I need.  I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L for 5% of the rest and the same Thrifty Fifty 50mm f/1.8 prime lens that you have for the other 5%.  These three lenses are really all I need in my kit at the moment and have served me well for about 12 years.  The only thing I've upgraded has been camera bodies.

[peejman]

How's that T3i holding up for you?

Quite well. I don't play with it as much as I'd like, but that goes for most every toy I own. Too many hobbies I guess.

[Mark A]

I run a 24-70mm f/2.8L as my primary "walk around" lens and it does 90% of what  I need.  I have a 70-200mm f/2.8L for 5% of the rest and the same Thrifty Fifty 50mm f/1.8 prime lens that you have for the other 5%.  These three lenses are really all I need in my kit at the moment and have served me well for about 12 years.  The only thing I've upgraded has been camera bodies.

David, what body are you currently using?

[TGO David]

David, what body are you currently using?

 

I'm back to my 7D right now.  Sold my 5D Mark II and am trying to decide if I really want to sink the coin on a Mark III.  Honestly i prefer the lighter weight and smaller body of the 7D but I do miss full frame a little.

[tnguy]

I just ordered the Rokinon \o/

[Mark A]

I'm back to my 7D right now.  Sold my 5D Mark II and am trying to decide if I really want to sink the coin on a Mark III.  Honestly i prefer the lighter weight and smaller body of the 7D but I do miss full frame a little.

I'm still soldiering on with an original 5D. I also have a couple of mk2n's that I just can't bring myself to part with. Really like full frame but I also liked the 1.3 factor sensors.

The few (admittedly rare) times my wife has made a comment about spending money on guns I go get some of my camera gear out and start playing with it. My progression has gone from hard core jeeps to deep down the sports photography hole to firearms and training. Each move has cost less...

[GlockSpock]

Ok, so after the weekend I decided to try this. I'm throwing both my 18-55 and 55-250 IS II lenses on Ebay and for sale here. If they sell I will be applying that money towards my vehicle payoff. Once the vehicle gets paid off I will be buying a 6D or comparable.

 

It is in the classifieds section here.

 

Now, is the 6D what I should be looking at? I'm wanting full-frame. Price is obviously the limiting factor but I want to stay Canon and want full-frame.

[VERO1]

You have your choice of 1D/5D or 6D if you want to go full frame. If you're buying new the 6d is by far the most affordable option.

[GlockSpock]

You have your choice of 1D/5D or 6D if you want to go full frame. If you're buying new the 6d is by far the most affordable option.

 

1D $6,799

5D $3,099

6D $1,799

 

I think that's a good place to start.

[VERO1]

Agreed! I'm looking at some lightly used/refurbs to upgrade the 7D I hve been using. I just can't justify a new one.

[GlockSpock]

Agreed! I'm looking at some lightly used/refurbs to upgrade the 7D I hve been using. I just can't justify a new one.

 

I may look into it. Upgrading to the 6D or better? Something I really want to research is whether the "bottom of the line full-frame" is worth it? I'm assuming yes, but that's a lot of money to spend. I just hope quality is there.

[TGO David]

1D $6,799

5D $3,099

6D $1,799

 

I think that's a good place to start.

 

You just need to be aware of the trade-offs.  If you're selling your lenses, you might as well investigate Nikon.  You'll pay slightly less for the Nikon body but slightly more for the lenses.

[GlockSpock]

You just need to be aware of the trade-offs. If you're selling your lenses, you might as well investigate Nikon. You'll pay slightly less for the Nikon body but slightly more for the lenses.

Well I could. But I have the 50mm 1.4 that I am keeping as well as the 430 EX II external flash. I like Canon so I figure I will just stay with them unless someone can prove to me that it would be beneficial to switch to Nixon.