After a Canon Lens recommendation

[1ponders]

I have been recommended a number of medium range zoom lenses to replace the standard dismal canon 28-90.
The ones that grabbed my eye in my price range are the Canon 28-135 and the Sigma 18-125. Outside the price range but highly recommended is the 24-105. For General grab and go is it worth the extra . The current camera it will be used on is an old 300D, but there could be an upgrade in the wind in the near future.

[ricktas]

What are you intending to use the lens for? That will help us guide your decision

[1ponders]

Hi Rick.

It will simply be for a grab and go lens. A lens that i can take with me when out walking for general purpose use.

[ricktas]

ok, whilst the 24-105 is a superb lens, you will do well with either the siggy or the canon as a walk around lens. It is just a matter of what you want to pay. But long term the 24-105 is a damn fine lens from all reports and it may be worth considering saving up a bit longer and getting that.

[Ray Heath]

G'day 1

Get a prime lens. Primes are sharper, more versatile, easier to handle and much better optically than any zoom. My most used lens is a 24mm/2.8 on a DSLR, 35mm/2.8 on SLR.

Learn to frame and compose by moving yourself.

[Allann]

Ray, I'm interested in your statement that a prime is much more versatile than a zoom, how did you get to that conclusion?
Also I tend to disagree that primes are better than zooms. With today's pro zooms I wouldnt hesitate to use just a 70-200 instead of carrying the 85 and 200 primes. I'm assuming your statement was pitting a pro prime against a pro zoom? Cause a pro zoom outperforms a stanard prime any day of the week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phild]

Welcome to AP Paul, how are things up there at the ponderosa??

[Brian500au]

Hi and welcome to AP.

I have used both the 24-105 and the 28-135 and both are excellent lens. My first lens was the 28-135 on an older 10D and some of the shots I took with that lens are still my favourites today. I sold it and decided to buy the 24-105L, but in reality if you are on a budget then I would be as happy with the 28-135 again. The other thing about this 28-135 is it holds it's value on the second hand market well - so if you do decide to upgrade in the future, there is a decent second hand market available to sell the lens.

Both lens are full frame lenses - ie they will fit the full range of Canon DSLRs, so you are not restricted if you chose to upgrade your canon body in the future.

[Phil Mac]

I have the 24-105 on a 500D and have taken some great shots with it. An advantage is that it is sealed against dust etc, so it should keep well for future body upgrades. * Edited: members with under 30 days membership and 50 posts are not allowed to promote commercial sites on Ausphotography : Admin *.

Cheers

[bigdazzler]

Get a prime lens. Primes are sharper, more versatile, easier to handle and much better optically than any zoom.



Ray, I'm interested in your statement that a prime is much more versatile than a zoom, how did you get to that conclusion?


mmmm ... me too actually. If the OP is after a "grab and go" lens, for walkabout photography, that will serve him well in most situations, I dont really see how a fixed lens could be more versatile either. I reckon the 24-105 would be the go if you can stretch the budget. Even though the FOV wont be all that wide on your 300D, by all reports (I dont use Canon) it is a fantastic lens. It will be an even better investment for the future if you upgrade your camera to a full frame version down the track.

I suppose it comes down to do you want a "grab and go" and shoot wider type landscape shots, or do you wanna "grab and go" and shoot general/street/walkabout/portrait/everydayshooteverything/ kinda shots ?? The 24-105 is perfect for pretty much all of the latter category, but will it be wide enough for the former ??

[Ray Heath]

mmmm ... me too actually. If the OP is after a "grab and go" lens, for walkabout photography, that will serve him well in most situations, I dont really see how a fixed lens could be more versatile either. I reckon the 24-105 would be the go if you can stretch the budget. Even though the FOV wont be all that wide on your 300D, by all reports (I dont use Canon) it is a fantastic lens. It will be an even better investment for the future if you upgrade your camera to a full frame version down the track.

I suppose it comes down to do you want a "grab and go" and shoot wider type landscape shots, or do you wanna "grab and go" and shoot general/street/walkabout/portrait/everydayshooteverything/ kinda shots ?? The 24-105 is perfect for pretty much all of the latter category, but will it be wide enough for the former ??

G'day all

Well, primes are more versatile for several reasons:
they have larger maximum apertures so are more hand holdable in lower light as the shutter speed can be kept up;

they are physically smaller so are easier to hand hold;

they are more versatile because they make you consider angle of view and perspective not just subject size;

they are generally sharper and optically better because they are of a simpler design.

I'm somewhat bewildered by these oft quoted concepts of "grab and go" lenses and "walkabout photography". Should I infer that sometimes people just want to mindlessly "grab" images and "walkabout" to something else. It should be that all photography is important; along with a realisation that as a photographer you cannot always be "armed" with the "correct" gear to photograph any subject to the nth degree.

My most often used lens, the lens that I "walkabout" with, is a 24mm on DSLR because that matches the way I've come to view my world after nearly 30 years of 35mm film photography using mostly a 35mm lens. i.e I see the world just a little wider than "normal".

So if I'm out with my 24mm and I suddenly have the urge to make an image that requires a 200mm, well I just can't. I'd have to do something creative or come back another day.

[ricktas]

Back to what the OP asked for...

They wanted a ZOOM, that could be used as their general work around lens. They also noted that the cost of the 24-105 was prohibitive to them at this time. So, considering the information they provided, a set of primes is going to costs them way more than their single general purpose zoom.

I think sometimes those of us with years of experience and much more camera gear can forget that those newer to photography do not have the money or need to spend a heap of it on gear at this time in their photography.

Keep this thread on track and answer the questions the OP asked, rather than taking it off on a tangent..thanks!

[Jimbo]

Get the 24-105 if you can, it's a fantastic lens. I have no experience with the other - I originally bought the 24-105 to replace the kit lens on my 300D and never looked back. My only wish is that it was f/2.8, but -hey- you can't have everything (and it has IS anyway, which mostly makes up for it).

[Allann]

The newer 18-55 IS that comes as a kit lens on many cameras these days is plentiful on eBay as people upgrade to pro glass, thar could be an option. Not too big, better iq than original 18-55 nonIS version, and cheap. The 55-250 is in a similar league and has more reach.
Sorry Rick for helping drag it off topic, I should know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sunseeker]

Sigma 24-70 as a grab N go * Link removed. Members with under 30 days membership and 50 posts cannot promote commercial sites on Ausphotography - Admin *
For serious work a Canon L or a canon prime.
David

[etherial]

I am one who has had the 18-55 and 55-250 kit lenses and moved onto the 24-105 as my main "walkaround" lens. I found the IQ quite fine in both of the kit lenses and would recommend them to anyone on a tight budget. The problem I did have though is that the 18-55 lacked a bit of reach, it is amazing how often you want to go from 30mm to say 80mm.

I really love the 24-105, it is wide enough for most things, and has enough reach when I need it. For dramatic wide, I also got the 10-22. Have a look at what you shoot a lot of though, you might find that 28mm on the wide end isn't wide enough for you and would just frustrate you. Every mm counts down at that end, there is a big different between say 18mm and 28mm!

There are a few options for you now and you have identified a couple allready; Canon do a few reasonable priced lenses like the EF-S 17-85 or the EF-S 18-135 (neither of which I have used). They do hold value reasonably so buying something like these and upgrading to a 24-105 down the track is certainly an option. Personally I think if budget is a significant factor, go with the cheaper lens at this point of your development.

Rememer too, if you are considering going to a full frame camera like the 1D or 5D, you should look for EF lenses, as these cameras won't accept the EF-S mount.

Edit to add: This site: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ is a great resource in terms of lens reviews for eveything in the Canon lineup and a few of the Sigmas and Tamrons. There are also some tips and general lens information that is worth a read too.

[soulman]

Outside the price range but highly recommended is the 24-105. For General grab and go is it worth the extra .I've owned both and still have my 24-105, which I think offers outstanding image quality on a crop camera. The 28-135 was not by any means a bad lens though and the only reasons I sold it were firstly that I wanted to offer the camera I was selling with a lens and it was the best choice from what I had, and that the 24-105 has a reputation as an outstanding lens and I wanted to find out how good things could be with pro glass. I wasn't disappointed: contrast, colour, sharpness, build quality - all superior.

As to whether it is worth it, the L lens is over twice the price, is nowhere near twice as good, but is a lovely bit of kit. L lenses hold their value very well but they tend to cost much more, so you can still lose a significant amount when you sell. On the other hand, you are much less likely to sell the 24-105 to upgrade to something else, whereas if you continue your interest in photography you will almost certainly upgrade from either of the other lenses you mention. You will save money buying the L now if that's the case.

[TassieSnapper]

Get the 24-105. Brilliant lens. You wont regret it.

[chrisprendergast]

+1 for the canon 24-105mm i own one and used to use it on my 450d before upgrading to a 5dmk2 it is a very good lens and worth the money :)

[etherial]

People, please remember the OP's budget. It is very easy for us all to sit back and say buy the 24-105, and I'm sure if people had the money they would but they are $1200!



The ones that grabbed my eye in my price range are the Canon 28-135 and the Sigma 18-125. Outside the price range but highly recommended is the 24-105.

The two lenses the OP has mentioned are $599 and $425, which are a completely different price point to the 24-105 which is outside his price range.

Unfortunately not everyone has money to burn on top quality glass.

[rwg717]

Having used the 24-105 for some time now I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it. Camera bodies go out of fashion but lenses are something that last for years if you keep them clean and well looked after.

For the extra cash I think it would be a mistake to buy cheap and then in 12 months time suddenly decide "I wish I'd put the extra money into the 24-105". Tough decision but buy for the long term:)
Richard

[soulman]

People, please remember the OP's budget. It is very easy for us all to sit back and say buy the 24-105, and I'm sure if people had the money they would but they are $1200!The OP did specifically ask if the 24-105 was worth the extra though. People who are recommending it are just saying "yes" I guess.

[etherial]

As long as posters offering advice consider the price difference then fair enough, but double the price is a big gap and for what? Maximum aperture is a bit each way, and as far as image quality, well that is hard to put a price on. I think when offering advice, we should also be saying why we recommend the things we do.

Personally given what information we have about the intended use and the assumed level of the photographer, I think it is hard to justify double the cost. Happy to hear the opinions of others though!