7D and kit lens

[kwilter100]

Hello! I would like to purchase a new 7D. I have had the xsi for a couple of years now and have loved learning about photography. I mostly take pictures of kids and quilts and families. I am wondering if I should get the 28-135 kit lens with this camera or if I should invest in a different lens. I would like to get an L lens eventually, but can't afford to do both the 7D and a $1200 lens at the same time. Does anyone have any advice on that or experience with the 28-135 lens?


Currently I have a 50mm f/1.8 II, an EF-S 18-55 and an EF-S 55-250. I would love to get a full frame camera in the future, so I'm tempted to steer away from the EF-S lenses for now.

[Brendan7]

I would suggest one of Canon's cheap but good lenses:


85mm f/1.8 - $360 - would complement your 50 f/1.8 nicely


70-200mm f/4l - $600 (L series) - my choice


also consider the 100 f/2.


I have tried both of these and they are underpriced. Especially the L.


The 28-135 is a kit lens, and has its optical faults, but many are satisfied with it. I would shell out the extra $$ for the 70-200 f/4l usm, though.


Bryan's reviews will help you with your choice.





Welcome to the TDP forum! []


brendan

[wickerprints]

I have a favorite saying about camera gear:


Bodies may come and go, but good glass is forever.





I really want to encourage you to invest in high-quality optics as much as possible. Bodies are updated every 1-2 years. Lenses can go for a decade without being redesigned. A sharp lens, cared for properly, will last you through multiple bodies. Their resale value is also higher. You can achieve more creative flexibility with the appropriate lens than you can with a different body. Canon L lenses will perform admirably on any EOS body.


Now this advice isn't meant to discourage you from purchasing the 7D. In fact, the move from an XSi to a 7D is pretty big. So I think it's a good decision. But don't cheap out on lenses, because that 7D has a very high pixel density and it will reveal any shortcomings of the lens attached to it.


That said, the 28-135 is a generally well-regarded lens, but I advise you to move toward L glass as soon as possible. In fact, if you cannot afford the initial outlay I would advise you to buy NO lens, continue using what you have, and save up until you do have the funds. The most common mistake I see when buying lenses is that in order to satisfy their Gear Acquisition Syndrome, they buy whatever mid-range lens they can afford, then end up with a collection of "decent" lenses, when they could have had one or two carefully-chosen "amazing" lenses. I freely admit that I myself have been a victim of this error. It takes a lot of discipline to wait for the right moment to buy, and you absolutely must know exactly what you need.


If your intention is to go "full frame" at some point, the best lenses for the type of photography you mentioned are the 35/1.4L, 85/1.2L II, 100/2.8 macro (both L and non-L versions), and the 135/2L. The 24-105/4L IS is a very versatile and easy lens to use, if you prefer zooms. Presently, the 70-200mm family of lenses are a bit long on the APS-C size sensor of the 7D for your purposes. And remember, try before you buy. Don't be afraid to walk into a camera store and play with some lenses, even if you plan to buy online. And ideally, try to rent when you've narrowed it down to one or two lenses. Good luck!

[HiFiGuy1]

I whole-heartedly agree with everything wickerprints just said. Except one. If you are going to avail yourself of the riches of a local camera shop's inventory, and try out a piece or pieces of said inventory to make a purchase decision, then you owe it to them to at least consider buying your lens from them. Think of it as "free short term rental" but higher purchase price.


You could also rent a potential keeper from Lens Rentals.com, but of course, there is a price for that luxury. If you did that, subsequently buying online is fine, in my opinion. You will get to try it out more thoroughly, but the overall expenditure will be pretty close either way.


The benefit to buying from a shop near you is hopefully they will be there to service your needs in the future. What if you have an egregiously mis-focusing lens? You could always take it back to the shop and make them swap it. Any reputable store would do so.


Anyway, just my 2c. Being a small business owner, I always try to help people see the value of purchasing goods and services from local businesses when they are clearly there.

[kwilter100]

Thank you all so much for your advice. I'm really excited. I would like to purchase the 24-70L or 24-105L by the end of this year. That will be another really challenging decision to make. I'm thinking I'll have saved enough to get it by Christmas for sure, but maybe even sooner. So for now, I'll probably just go with the body and use the lenses I have now.


Thanks!


P.S. If you have more advice, please don't hesitate to share!

[peety3]

Thank you all so much for your advice. I'm really excited. I would like to purchase the 24-70L or 24-105L by the end of this year. That will be another really challenging decision to make. I'm thinking I'll have saved enough to get it by Christmas for sure, but maybe even sooner. So for now, I'll probably just go with the body and use the lenses I have now.

My standard advice on the 24-70/24-105 debate is simple: if you have two bodies, or lens changes don't cause you to miss great shots on a single body, 24-70 is probably the right choice. Otherwise, 24-105 is the better choice.


As far as the 28-135 kit lens, LensRentals said it well a while ago, but I can't find the article on their site to quote them: the only true wrong lens purchase is the lens that you don't want, try to sell, and can't reasonably recoup your investment. The 28-135 is a lens where you won't get your investment back. It sells for $410 at B&H, but gets included in kits for only a $200 premium. As a kit lens, it's a high-volume lens, so supply should outpace demand almost all the time. I don't watch lenses on Ebay, but I bet the lens won't sell for more than $140, maybe $180 if never used. If you believe in backups, it's a great $200 backup lens, so there's nothing wrong with keeping it, but I wouldn't get grand ideas about selling it either.

[neuroanatomist]

I agree withwickerprints' philosophy, but I'd phrase it in a different way. Buy the best lens you can that meets the demands of the types of pictures you want to take. I don't hold much stock in the 'I will avoid EF-S because I might go FF at some point' idea. Good lenses hold value. I know that I'll get a reasonable return on my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM if I ever go FF. I needed a lens to shoot family pics around the house. An appropriate focal length range (wide to moderate tele) and a fast aperture were necessary. I did debate between two excellent-quality lenses - 24-70mm f/2.8L and 17-55mm f/2.8. The kit lens, the 15/17-85mm, the 24-105 f4/L IS, etc., did not meet the needs for that purpose, and the 24-70 isn't quite wide enough, and lacks IS (for now). Similarly, I will be getting a telephoto zoom down the line. Yes, I can get an EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 USM now, but that's a mid-range consumer zoom, not a top-tier lens.


Wickerprints, apparently I suffer from a different issue with myGear Acquisition Syndrome - I still tend to buy quality lenses, but I will drop $1K on one of them when I have it (e.g. theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM that I bought in December), instead of saving up for the more expensive lenses also on my list. Case in point - the EF-S 10-22mm I'm considering buying right before the rebates are up, instead of putting that money towards an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS MkII. The logic still holds - had I not bought the 85mm f/1.8 (last October), the 100mm IS Macro, and if I skip the 10-22mm, that will probably almost cover a 70-200 f/2.8 IS MkII. But then I think of the portraits and candids of my family I would have missed (with the 85mm f/1.8), the fun I've had so far with the macro, and the shots of the Golden Gate bridge I plan to to take with the 10-22 when I go to San Francisco in February, and it's easier to live with the decisions. Having said that, a70-200 f/2.8 IS will be the lens after the 10-22, I promise...but wait, should I get the EF 135mm f/2L first???


[:S]

[elmo_2006]

In my little humble opinion, I would sell off the EF-S lenses to offset the purchase of the 24-1054L. Then you can get the 17-40L (IQ offset by $ or viceversa...LOL) orthe Canon, Sigma or Tokina UWA'sand/or the 70-2004L IS USM!


I've listed the above only from a budget standpoint.


As for the 28-135 lens, its not a bad budget lens but I found it lacking something - I found the images lacking 'punch'....I'm also not a fan of the "trombone design", there was serious lens creep and the lens is a magnet for dust. As the lens ages you will notice as wellthe focus/zoom ring(s) becomes very loose.


Bryan's review of the lens is pretty much 'bang-on'.


I've since then sold the 28-135 to purchase the 24-105 4L and I'm happier than the proverbial 'pig in mud'!


[:$]

[Steve Combs]

I've got a 40D and the following lenses:

• 28-135 "Kit" lens (came with the 40D) -- Good lens, not great.
• 70-200 F4L lens (non-IS) -- GREAT Lens, would buy it again. Fairly small (compared to the 2.8L IS or Non-IS and the F4L IS), wonderful sharp pictures. Very easy to just put on the body and carry around. Probably my most used lens.
• 10-22 EF-S -- Excellent lens. It's only problem is the idiot behind the camera, not the lens.

My plans are to get the 70-200 F2.8L IS II MAYBE later this year, the 50 1.4 and 100 2.8L IS Macro will probably happen before the telephoto zoom tho. EVENTUALLY, I want a couple of Telephoto primes (200 F2L and maybe a 400 F2.8L) but they're a ways out. IF I had it to do over, I'd not have gotten the 28-135, but a 24-70 F2.8L but it IS more $$$.





Just my $0.02 worth.

[liam821]

I totally agree with what is said above. Some good glass on your XSi is going to take a better picture than the 7d with a crappy lens.


There are some really good cheaper lenses out though. The Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 is fantastic (other than being a bit noisy) with image quality giving the $1000 canon 17-55 F/2.8 a run for its money. And, the best part, you can pick one up used for under $350. It really makes a great general use walk around lens.


Congrats on the 7d


liam