Which lens with 7D?

I'm looking at a 7D. I can't decide if I should get the 18-135 or the 28-135 kit lens. I have an xsi, but I'm selling my 18-55 and 55-200 EF-S lenses with it. I usually use prime lenses, but need a decent zoom lens. I haven't loved the feel of the 18-135. It seems really cheap to me - which is what I'm trying to get away from by going to the 7D. Which one will give me sharper images? I would love to get a 24-70 or a 24-105 soon, but I'm not sure when that will be possible. And, like I said, I use my 50mm and 85mm a lot.

P.S. I don't take a ton of wide angle shots. I mostly do portrait and family.

My recommendation for the best general purpose lens (the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) is right up there with the lenses that are currently a bit out of your reach. Maybe you could add a wider angle prime like the 35mm f/2...then you'd have a good variety of primes for most applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

My recommendation for the best general purpose lens (the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS)

---

I second that. I have it and love it. It stays on my APS-C bodies most of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kwilter100

I can't decide if I should get the 18-135 or the 28-135 kit lens

---

Hey kwilter,


Welcome to the forum. My wife has the 28-135 IS and she uses it on her 40D. I've "borrowed it" and used it on my 5D Full frame. I like it. It is however sorta cheap. The barrel always extends when pointed down. IQ is good enough though and I've been presently suprised with the photos I was able to capture. The IS works well at 1/15th and fasterfor hand held shots and the clarity and contrast is very good.If you can't afford a 17-55 f2.8 IS then this is a really good alternative. The only other lens I would "highly" recommend is the 17-50 f2.8 from Tamron. They have a new "VC" version out that is unfortunately not living up to the standard of the original.


Here ya go:


http://ChuckLee.zenfolio.com/img/v9/p323413244-3.jpg


Canon EOS 5D, <span class="nowrap"]f/5 @ <span class="nowrap"]60 mm, <span class="nowrap"]1/8, <span class="nowrap"]ISO 1600, <span class="nowrap"]No Flash "Handheld" Woah!!

Here's another thought--if you think you'll use longer focal lengths often, and you don't typically shoot in dimly-lit conditions, the 70-200mm f/4 L is probably one of the best value lenses that Canon makes (when it comes to superb image quality). It might be a good fit for you, though, as long as you've got some room to work with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

70-200mm f/4 L

---

If it's a crop camera, you'll need quite a bit of room. LOL [:D]

I can't speak for the 18-135mm but I've had the 28-135mm since purchasing it in a kit with my 40D around 2 years ago now. I was initially very pleased with it and took some great shots with it but I've since invested in some nicer glass and it hasn't been on my camera since.


For the price it'sprettygood value. The IS works well and the front element does not rotate which is a benefit with a CPL filter. It's reasonably sharp between 50-100mm but outside that I've found it can be a little soft.


However, f/5.6 in the long end makes things a little slow and thus background blur is not amazing - which is pretty important for your portrait work. As mentioned previously the barrel does extend when pointed down which gets frustrating. The build quality is also pretty mediocre (feels very sloppy in comparison to my 70-200mm f/4L IS) and I have a lot of dust behind the front element that gets in through the barrels. Contrast is not amazing either.


As Sean mentioned, the 70-200 f/4L is a far superior lens both optically and in build quality. The price is very good for how well this lens can perform - I agree that it could be a tad long. The EFS17-55mm f/2.8 IS would probably be your best option if it falls within your price range and if you don't plan on moving up to a full frame camera.


I've attached a sample pic to show what the 28-135mm can do for interests sake. I can't remember but I believe I added some sharpening and curve adjustments in post so it may not be the best representation of the optical quality.


Hope this helps, good luck.


Ben.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.28.34/3441617690_5F00_ded8fe8ce5_5F00_b.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btaylor

However, f/5.6 in the long end makes things a little slow and thus background blur is not amazing

---

Yeah, the bokeh in that shot is pretty lack lustre...LOL


Shows its not always the equipment. Beautiful shot Ben.


I'm still say'n... that lens is cheap.... but very under rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by piiooo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sean Setters

My recommendation for the best general purpose lens (the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS)

---

I second that. I have it and love it. It stays on my APS-C bodies most of the time.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I third that! [:)] I absolutely love my 7D and 17-55mm f/2.8 IS! Tomorrow I am taking them both with me to the car show in Milwaukee and cannot wait!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chuck Lee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by btaylor

However, f/5.6 in the long end makes things a little slow and thus background blur is not amazing

---

Yeah, the bokeh in that shot is pretty lack lustre...LOL


Shows its not always the equipment. Beautiful shot Ben.


I'm still say'n... that lens is cheap.... but very under rated.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Hmmm I may have contradicted myself a bit there. I guess what I was trying to say (beforeI wenton a rant) is that in the right conditions the optical quality is great for the price, the build quality is fairly uninspiring though.

Thanks for the compliment BTW Chuck. [:D]

Thanks, everyone for the advise. I can almost make myself sick trying to decide what to do. I hope I can just get a 24-70 or 24-105 sometime soon. I wish they would add IS to that 24-70. :-)

You might not have to wait too long that IS...