Help with walkaround lens - Canon EF 28-135mm / EF-S 18-200mm

[kiuilop]

Hi there, I'm having some truble deciding what new lens to buy and I was hoping to get some advice.





I currently own a Canon D500, I have the original lens I got it with - EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens. I bought the Canon EF 55mm f1.4 which I'm really happy with. My purpose now was to replace my 18-55 as a walkaround lens with something that would have at least the same picture quality over that range but hopefully that would offer me some extra range.





I'm going to buy a second hand lens and I'm willing to spend around 200-300$ (from what I've seen that goes to around a 500-650$ new lens)





I read a bunch of reviews but I would like some advice for my particular situation. I would use this lens as my primary lens when I'm traveling, or just walking around the town for some interesting scenes worth capturing.





My main options are:





EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - seen some good reviews but I'm afraid the picture quality will suffer too much with such a large range. I particular remember reading that barrel distortion is quite large on this one.





EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - I've read some contradictory reviews on this one, some say the picture quality is pretty good managing to get quite some sharp images, others have been harsher on the image quality on both the lower / higher end. The 28mm lower end worries me as well as I don't want to carry my 18-55 around.





What do you think I should get?






Thanks =]

[Daniel Browning]

First: run, don't walk, to the nearest 15-85. Yes, it costs 15% more than the 18-200, and yes, it doesn't have quite as much range. But when it comes to image quality it is in a totally different world than the two lenses you are looking at.


Second, stay away from the 28-135. It the same price and image quality as the 18-135, but less range. The only reason to buy it would be if you had full frame.


Third, the two lenses you picked have *worse* image quality than your existing kit lens. You said you wanted "at least the same picture quality over that range", but you wont get it, especially in the corners. (Center of the frame is pretty close.)


Lastly: 15-85. Really.

[elmo_2006]

Helloand welcome to the forums...


It's great that you narrowed down your choices to only two lenses.

My main options are:


EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS - seen some good reviews but I'm afraid the picture quality will suffer too much with such a large range. I particular remember reading that barrel distortion is quite large on this one.

Judging by Bryan's review of said lens, this lens seems to get the job done. Barrel distortion can always be adjusted post processing via Canon DP or anyimage editing application. As for the focusing motor it is a *micro motor* not ring based *USM or Ultra Sonic Motor*- the difference is in speed whereas USM willdo circles around themicro motor.

EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM - I've read some contradictory reviews on this one, some say the picture quality is pretty good managing to get quite some sharp images, others have been harsher on the image quality on both the lower / higher end. The 28mm lower end worries me as well as I don't want to carry my 18-55 around.

For starters, I used to own this lens and though I was content with the image quality I found it lacking on the long end. Bryan's review of the lens is *smack on*. I also found that dust collected easily under the front element. The lens also suffered from some serious lens *creep* whereby the lens would extend on its own when pointed down/up for example. However the focusing was quick and silent. For all of it's short comings, its not bad for the price.


Personally speaking, I'm not a fan of the *double trombone* design in which these 2 lenses mention are based on. I feel that this design leads to play in the lens when extended and allows dust into the tubebut there area couple of lenses out there with this design without this problem.


Reading through your post, it seems that you are wanting at the short and long end and as such, the 18-200 fits the bill.


Have you looked atthird party lenses such as the:


Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Lens


Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM IF Lens


Sigma's HSM and OS is comparable to Canon's USM IS, not sure about the Tamron.


Hope this helps...

[kiuilop]

Hi Guys,


Thanks a lot for your replies!


Daniel,


Unfortunately the 15-85 is a bit out of my possibilities right now, even though it might only be around 15% more expensive than the 18-200 I can't really find any 2nd hand available at a reasonable price (for my pocket).


I guess the EF-S 18-135mm could / should be an option as well. I think when I first started my decision process I decided that if I went to an EF-S would probably just take the highest range possible assuming the quality would be similar (I don't see myself changing to a full body anytime soon but I guess the value of an EF lens in the long run would always be better).Maybe I went wrong there!


Still worried about the quality on both of them being somewhat lower than in the 18-55 =/





Elmo


Thanks for your input. Is the post processing with Canon DP something automatic that the program can adjusts based on the lenses known defects or a photo by photo manual process?


what would you say to Daniel suggestion on the EF-S 18-135?


I haven't looked a lot into third party lenses as I've never tried any and had no reference for quality. I reckon they are a lot cheaper, I read some reviews on the website on a couple of them. would the Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 comparable to the EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS in terms of image quality?





Thank you once more guys

[Sheiky]

Unfortunately the 15-85 is a bit out of my possibilities right now, even though it might only be around 15% more expensive than the 18-200 I can't really find any 2nd hand available at a reasonable price (for my pocket).

Just so you know...the 15-85 currently is in rebate or whatever you call it. -100 dollars on a new one. These rebates end 11 september.


Look into the news section of 7 september.


Jan

[Trowski]

I guess the EF-S 18-135mm could / should be an option as well. I think when I first started my decision process I decided that if I went to an EF-S would probably just take the highest range possible assuming the quality would be similar (I don't see myself changing to a full body anytime soon but I guess the value of an EF lens in the long run would always be better).Maybe I went wrong there!

Not every EF-S lens is created equal. The 17-55mm f/2.8, 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, and 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 have image qualities on par with most of the L zooms (unfortunately not build quality though).


When it comes to buying lenses, unless you see a full-frame camera in the very near future, buy what is best for you right now. So that means don't be afraid of EF-S lenses just because they might not fit on a full-frame camera someday. Most lenses hold their value very well, you can always eBay them if you do find yourself upgrading.

Unfortunately the 15-85 is a bit out of my possibilities right now, even though it might only be around 15% more expensive than the 18-200 I can't really find any 2nd hand available at a reasonable price (for my pocket).

<div>Do you need to have the lens now, or could you save your pennies for a little longer and go for something better like the 15-85mm or the 17-55mm. I know it seems like a lot to spend, but if you really want to upgrade the IQ from your kit lens, you're going to have to spend a little more to get that improvement in IQ. You also get improvements in other areas, such as USM allowing for FTM and much quieter and faster focusing.</div>

[elmo_2006]

It seems that the OP isbudget limited and I would humbly recommend either one of the following:


Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens ~ $600


Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens~ $450


Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS Lens~ $250


Sigma 18-250mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM IF Lens~ $480


Tamron 18-270mm f/3.5-6.3 Di II VC LD Lens~ $529 (inc. the $100 mail in rebate)


As for the Sigma and Tamron's please keep in mind that the quality control on these lenses are questionable, not saying that they are all bad, you have a greater chance obtaining a lens that either has focusing problems when compared to the Canon's.


The above are consumer lenses and typically cater to those that shop at the Best Buys/Future Shops of the worldand looking at the ISO 12233 Cropsof said lenses, they all seem similar -to me at least.


If the OP wishes to move up to the upper-mid-levellenses, then expect to pay more (with some exceptionsfor examplethe 28-135 is considered an upper-mid-level lensbut ancient as well).


As for editing the images, Canon DPP will correct barrel distortionsas well but I'm not sure if it can be automated where a number of images can be selected and then *batched* into a job. Canon DPP is powerfulfor what it is and it's free!


I say read thereviews, make the decision as to what you really require and go out and support the local economy. Life is way too short to spend in front of a computer going through ISO charts, MTF charts etc - hmmm what just happened here....LOL?


*Beauty is in the eye-of-the-beholder*! You'd be surprised to some of the images that can be obtained from a $150 lens!


-elmo-

[Kayaker72]

Hi Kiuilop


My first hand experience is with the EFS 15-85 and it does takes sharp pictures. I've read/heard that either lens that you are asking about is not much of an improvement (if not worse)than your current lens. Rather, the two "bang for your buck" zoom lenses I've heard people talk about are your current kit lens and the EFS55-250 f4.0-5.6 IS. Other than that, maybe look at picking up another prime lens? I've heard great things about the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2 and that the 24/28/35 mm (non-L) lenses aren't bad.


Good luck,


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

My main options are...EF-S 18-200mm...EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM...EF-S 18-135mm...


What do you think I should get?

Given your budget, I think you'd probably be best served by the 18-135mm lens. Bryan describes the 18-135mm lens as having, "image quality that is more on or slightly above a kit-lens level," and compared to the 18-200mm it has , "image quality that is similar or slightly better in sharpness and distortion."


Any of those three lenses are best used stopped down to f/8 or so, but will provide decent IQ in that case.


Definitely stay away from the 28-135mm lens, and also keep in mind that the 18-200mm lens doesn't really give you much more focal length than the 18-135mm. Bryan comments in his review that 200mm on that lens frames similar to 174mm; I tested a copy in a local camera shot compared to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, and found that the 18-200mm @ 200mm gave similar framing as 154mm on the 70-200mm lens.

My purpose now was toreplace my 18-55 as a walkaround lens with something that would have at least the same picture quality over that range but hopefully that would offer me some extra range.

If that's your objective, then I think the 18-135mm will do that. It's just as wide, longer, and has approximately similar IQ and build quality.


On the other hand, if you want better IQ than your kit lens and still need to stay in the 18-135mm price range, you'll need to think prime lens. You already have the 50mm f/1.4 so you have some idea of the better IQ a prime can give. Having said that, both the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2 offer better image quality than the 50mm f/1.4, especially wide open. I had the 85mm f/1.8, and it's really a wonderful lens, excellent for portraits and low-light (indoor, ambient) shooting.
<div>

Just so you know...the 15-85 currently is in rebate or whatever you call it. -100 dollars on a new one. These rebates end 11 september.

Jan, that $100 rebate only applies if you buy the lens along with a qualifying dSLR body (1DIV, 5DII, or 7D). So unfortunately,<span>kiuilop will likely not be eligible for that discount.
</div>

[Sheiky]

Just so you know...the 15-85 currently is in rebate or whatever you call it. -100 dollars on a new one. These rebates end 11 september.

Jan, that $100 rebate only applies if you buy the lens along with a qualifying dSLR body (1DIV, 5DII, or 7D). So unfortunately,<span>kiuilop will likely not be eligible for that discount.

Oh that's nasty, I did not see that...

My purpose now was toreplace my 18-55 as a walkaround lens with something that would have at least the same picture quality over that range but hopefully that would offer me some extra range.

Well, the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 offers you better image quality, but at the same range and without IS. In my opinion you better have one strong general lens than 1 longer zooming lens that is weaker... Once you see what a better lens can do, you'll get my point.


A second lens: prime or zoom would make more sense I think.


For just the extra zoom, you could also look at the Canon EF-S 55-250 IS. Second hand they are really cheap and you do get Image Stabilization which can be very helpful at longer focal lengths at minimum apertures of f5.6


Personally I think the 18-135 is too expensive for what it offers over the 18-55. But that's my thought.


Jan