Originally Posted by Lizzy
On full frame, 24-105 is the "typical" wide-to-telephoto general purpose range. 50 is "normal", so 24-105 gives a good range from ultra wide to normal to telephoto.
On APS-C, 24-105 is not typical, it is normal-to-almost-super-telephoto. 24 is "short normal", 31 is "normal", 50 is telephoto, and 105 is almost into super telephoto.
In the range where they overlap, I think the 18-55 is better or the same. It's certainly far far cheaper. But they cover very different focal lengths.
The EF-S 55-200 IS is cheaper, longer, and has a wider aperture. I think the 28-135 is a suboptimal choice. It costs a lot because it is designed for full frame. I think the only reason why it is so popular is that most people like to shoot telephoto and don't really care for wide angle.
If someone has 18-55 and 55-200, then every time they want to shoot telephoto, they have to stop and change lenses. Someone who has 28-135 and wants to shoot wide angle has to stop and change lenses.
If you plan to shoot at around 50mm most of the time, and go down to 40mm, 30mm, and up to 60mm, 70mm, then it makes sense to get the 28-135 so you don't have to change lenses.
But if you plan to shoot at around 30mm most of the time, and go down to 24mm, 17mm, and up to 40mm, 50mm, then get the 17-50mm f/2.8 and a cheap telephoto such as 55-200.
Reply With Quote