18-135 upgrade?

[gra2172]

I am looking for a "walkaround" type of lens that would be an upgrade for my 18-135 kit lens for my Canon 60D. The pictures we take are usually single person portraits in landscape settings. Occasionally we do those arm length couple shots using the remote since strangers who use pocket cameras never seem to be able to take pictures with our camera. "But I heard it click!" They say..


We've gotten some great results from the 18-135, but wonder if there is a better lens out there. (Im sure there is)


Is there a wide angle lens with a zoom that would be a good upgrade? We like the wide angle for the landscape/full body portrait shots, but the zoom for things like distance photos of kayaks on a river.


The portrait distance is about 5-10' usually, the zoom distance can be 10-50'.





Ive read about 17-40 lenses for landscapes, but they dont appear to zoom, and I suspect will cause distortion in people.

[neuroanatomist]

Hi, and welcome to the TDP Forums!

Is there a wide angle lens with a zoom...Ive read about 17-40 lenses for landscapes, but they dont appear to zoom

I think you need to clarify what you mean by zoom. A zoom lens is one where you can change the focal length - the 17-40mm is a zoom lens, as is your 18-135mm lens. The 'opposite' of a zoom lens is a prime lens, i.e. lens with just one focal length, like the 35mm f/2 or the 85mm f/1.2L II.


What I think you mean when you state 'zoom' (based on "zoom for things like distance photos of kayaks on a river") is telephoto - a long focal length lens. So, it seems you are looking for a 'superzoom' lens - one that goes from wide to long. Lenses like the Canon EF-S 18-200mm, or 3rd party equivalents like the Tamron 18-270mm come to mind. But, their optical quality is not going to be much better (and may be worse) than your current 18-135mm lens. Optically, it's nearly impossible to design a lens to do everything well - compromises must be made. For superzoom lenses, IQ is what you give up for convenience. In fact, that's one of the main reasons for having a dSLR - the fact that you can change lenses and use the right lens for the right purpose.


If you want better optical quality and a broad focal range coverage, I'd suggest a pair of lenses - a good 'walkaround' lens like the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS (or the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS) paired with a good telephoto zoom lens such as the EF 70-200mm f/4L (with IS if that fits your budget) or EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS.


A lot of this depends on your budget, so if you can share what you're willing to spend, other recommendations can be made.

[gra2172]

Yes, youve clarified what my meaning is with a zoom. I shouldve made it clearer. Thanks.


As far as my budget goes, Id be willing to spend 1000$ish for a single lens, but probably wont be able to spend that on 2. I could probably go with the 18-135 for the super zoom features temporarily, but get something that works great for wide angle landscape/portrait type photos.

[neuroanatomist]

something that works great for wide angle landscape/portrait type photos.

To me, that sounds like a two-lens problem. As you pointed out in your first post, wide angle lenses don't work well for portraits. Portraits are usually tightly framed, and to do that with a wide lens you need to be so close to the subject that they become distorted.


One option would be an [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]85mm f/1.8[/url] for portraits ($400) and if you can stretch your budget by $100, the [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-8-16mm-f-4.5-5.6-DC-HSM-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 8-16mm f/4.5-5.6[/url] ($700), else perhaps the [url="http://www.The-Digital-Picture.com/Reviews/Sigma-10-20mm-f-4-5.6-EX-DC-Lens-Review.aspx]Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6[/url] ($480). For the 85/1.8, I can tell you from experience that it's a great lens for portraits and I think it's one of the best values in the Canon lens lineup (I sold mine only after getting the 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II). I've never used either Sigma lens, but Bryan reviews the 8-16mm favorably. I used to have the Canon 10-22mm lens, and that was great for wide angle/landscape shots - I left it out of the recommendation because of the higher price tag. However, if you'd prioritize landscapes over portraits, you might consider the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5($840)with the EF 50mm f/1.8 ($120) for portraits, a combination which fits your budget.


Hope that helps...


--John

[ham]

I

[JohnU]

You