Indecisive decision on next glass purchase

Hello everybody! I had just bought my Canon XSi during the beginning of last week and I have been out shooting a lot of pictures and well, I plan on making a purchase for a glass under $500 around February/March. I have been doing a lot of research on a great review site www.the-Digital-picture.com because they have reviewed almost all the glass that Canon carries.

Throughout my shooting experience from last week, I found that I kind of need a telephoto, so I can zoom up close on things but again, I want something that's wide. I know that the 50mm will be one of the glass that has to be in my bag and so, that may/may not be my first priority glass to buy. However it's the cheapest I can get which may alter my decision by buying that one first.

The glasses I've been having my eyes on are the:
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM // ~$400
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM // ~$450

I've heard that the barrel distortion on the 28-135 is really really noticeable in pictures. I haven't seen it for myself, but I really do want to see how the IQ is for the 28-135. Though, in my opinion, the 17-85 seems like a cheaper version of the 24-70 (but doesn't have great IQ, sharp focus as the 24-70 does).

What do you guys think I should do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVN2392

What do you guys think I should do?

---

I suggest you take a good long look at the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II. It's right in your price range, has a fantastic general purpose focal range, and from what I've read the lens produces good quality images.

The glass you have linked to me really does fulfill all of my needs at this moment... Do you think I'll probably need the 50mm if I get the 17-50mm?

I honestly don't know. I think it depends on if you'll require an aperture faster than f/2.8. I bought the 50mm f/1.4 because, at times, I do. But most of the time, I use my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I find that particular lens to be ideal in most situations. Since it's a bit out of your price range, I think the Tamron is a good compromise.

I agree with the Tamron 17-50 option. Very good lens. You probably won't need the 50mm if you get the Tamron. I personally would still get it just for the fun and creativity that comes with shooting with a 50mm prime, but the IQ is not all that much better than the Tamron. You can notice that the 50mm is sharper at f/2.8 than the Tamron is, but once you stop down to f/4 you can't notice much of a difference. I'd say get the Tamron and then once you've used it a while, decide if you really need the 50mm. You may want to purchase something like the 85mm f/1.8 instead since the Tamron covers the 17-50 range so well.


I wouldn't recommend the 17-85mm. I own it and my dad owns the 28-135mm, and the 28-135mm is much better quality than the 17-85mm. I'm not sure how the distortion is in comparison to the 17-85, but the 17-85 has a good amount of distortion too. The Tamron 17-50 is MUCH better IQ than the 17-85 and the 28-135. My dad owns the Tamron too, so I've had a chance to use all three of these lenses. I would pick the Tamron over any other lens in this range unless I was willing to spend around $1000 on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8L.


Hope this helps your decision. [:)]


Derrick

It's great to hear from a person that has experienced all three glass that I've been researching the past couple of days. I'm also thinking about the 55-250mm IS but I'm not so sure about that one.

In my opinion, the best option would be the $600 EF 70-200mm f/4l usm. It is the only L-series zoom you can get for that price, and in my mind you will thank yourself for spending the extra $100. The image quality, AF, etc will outclass the 55-250, 28-135 completely. All for an extra $100.


It isn't quite wide, but supplement that with the cheapo but sharp 50mm 1.8 and you have a sharp and reliable $690 50-200mm f/1.8-4 setup.

Do you think the IS is any good with the 70-200mm? I mean, with the IS USM, it costs twice as much but I'm just wondering if the IS is necessary.

Two things: One, I own and use the 55-250. It does produce good images, but if I was going to buy a telephoto lens again, I would go with the 70-200 f4L IS in a heartbeat. IS is EXTREMELY handy especially with the longer lenses. The difference from when I turn it on to when I turn it off is staggering; I don't have the steadiest hands so it gets shaky real fast in the viewfinder. That being said, even without IS the 70-200 f4 is still a stop faster on the long end and has much faster AF and better image quality so I hear.

I agree that the 70-200 would be a fantastic option. I have the 28-135 that came as the kit lens for my 40D and I don't think I have touched it since after I bought the 70-200 f/4L and my 50mm 1.8 (now replaced with a 50mm 1.4) early on. But I'm also not one for "zoom" and have learned hard lessons in bad glass.

PVN 2392, the 70-200mm f/4 with IS is much more expensive b/c it has the new, 3rd gen, 4 stop IS. This in my opinion is worth the difference in price. However, you said you had a budget of $500. The 70-200 f/4l non IS is already past that. If you have the money, get the IS version. Many say it's even better optically than the 70-200mm f/2.8.





You will definitely be satisfied by the 70-200mm f/4l usm. It is canon's 2nd best value lens (after 85mm 1.8).


If you think you have the financial means to buy the 70-200 f/4l usm WITH is, think about the 24-105 also. If this is too much $, by all means go with the 70-200 f/4l usm. The L means a lot; it is far better built. Why get anything else? Heck, it's even white! [H]

I also agree with the 70-200 f/4L option. Amazing lens. My dad owns this one too. Most of his keeper shots are taken with this lens. It's a joy to use. I highly recommend it over the 55-250.


Concerning the IS version, I'd say wait on that and just get the 70-200 f/4L non-IS for now. Then you can figure out if you really need IS or f/2.8 (the 70-200 f/2.8L non-IS is in the same price range as the 70-200 f/4L IS). If you need one of the two, you can easily sell your 70-200 f/4L non-IS for about what you paid for it.


If you have the money to spend on the 70-200 f/4L IS, I'd rather get the non-IS version along with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8.


If you don't have the money to spend that much, you'll have to decide between the 17-50 and 70-200. I assume you probably have the 18-55 kit lens? In that case, you may want to get the telephoto first.


Hope this helps.


Derrick





Edit - Though if you have the money to spend on the 70-200 f/4L IS, another good option would be to get that and the 50 f/1.8 for just 100 more. You could also add the 50 f/1.8 to a non-IS 70-200 f/4L purchase like bburns223 suggested.

You know, I'm actually considering those 2 purchases. However, the 50mm f/1.8 will be first w/ the battery grip. Then hopefully I'll be able to get the 70-200mm f/4L USM by the June of next year.

I second the Tamron 17-50 advice. You may also consider the 15-85 if it's in your budget.