Indecisive decision on next glass purchase

[PVN2392]

Hello everybody! I had just bought my Canon XSi during the beginning of last week and I have been out shooting a lot of pictures and well, I plan on making a purchase for a glass under $500 around February/March. I have been doing a lot of research on a great review site www.the-Digital-picture.com because they have reviewed almost all the glass that Canon carries.

Throughout my shooting experience from last week, I found that I kind of need a telephoto, so I can zoom up close on things but again, I want something that's wide. I know that the 50mm will be one of the glass that has to be in my bag and so, that may/may not be my first priority glass to buy. However it's the cheapest I can get which may alter my decision by buying that one first.

The glasses I've been having my eyes on are the:
28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM // ~$400
17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM // ~$450

I've heard that the barrel distortion on the 28-135 is really really noticeable in pictures. I haven't seen it for myself, but I really do want to see how the IQ is for the 28-135. Though, in my opinion, the 17-85 seems like a cheaper version of the 24-70 (but doesn't have great IQ, sharp focus as the 24-70 does).

What do you guys think I should do?

[Sean Setters]

What do you guys think I should do?

I suggest you take a good long look at the Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II. It's right in your price range, has a fantastic general purpose focal range, and from what I've read the lens produces good quality images.

[PVN2392]

The glass you have linked to me really does fulfill all of my needs at this moment... Do you think I'll probably need the 50mm if I get the 17-50mm?

[Sean Setters]

I honestly don't know. I think it depends on if you'll require an aperture faster than f/2.8. I bought the 50mm f/1.4 because, at times, I do. But most of the time, I use my Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. I find that particular lens to be ideal in most situations. Since it's a bit out of your price range, I think the Tamron is a good compromise.

[djzuk]

I agree with the Tamron 17-50 option. Very good lens. You probably won't need the 50mm if you get the Tamron. I personally would still get it just for the fun and creativity that comes with shooting with a 50mm prime, but the IQ is not all that much better than the Tamron. You can notice that the 50mm is sharper at f/2.8 than the Tamron is, but once you stop down to f/4 you can't notice much of a difference. I'd say get the Tamron and then once you've used it a while, decide if you really need the 50mm. You may want to purchase something like the 85mm f/1.8 instead since the Tamron covers the 17-50 range so well.


I wouldn't recommend the 17-85mm. I own it and my dad owns the 28-135mm, and the 28-135mm is much better quality than the 17-85mm. I'm not sure how the distortion is in comparison to the 17-85, but the 17-85 has a good amount of distortion too. The Tamron 17-50 is MUCH better IQ than the 17-85 and the 28-135. My dad owns the Tamron too, so I've had a chance to use all three of these lenses. I would pick the Tamron over any other lens in this range unless I was willing to spend around $1000 on the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS or the 24-70 f/2.8L.


Hope this helps your decision. []


Derrick

[PVN2392]

It's great to hear from a person that has experienced all three glass that I've been researching the past couple of days. I'm also thinking about the 55-250mm IS but I'm not so sure about that one.

[Brendan7]

In my opinion, the best option would be the $600 EF 70-200mm f/4l usm. It is the only L-series zoom you can get for that price, and in my mind you will thank yourself for spending the extra $100. The image quality, AF, etc will outclass the 55-250, 28-135 completely. All for an extra $100.


It isn't quite wide, but supplement that with the cheapo but sharp 50mm 1.8 and you have a sharp and reliable $690 50-200mm f/1.8-4 setup.

[PVN2392]

Do you think the IS is any good with the 70-200mm? I mean, with the IS USM, it costs twice as much but I'm just wondering if the IS is necessary.

[photosurfer]

Two things: One, I own and use the 55-250. It does produce good images, but if I was going to buy a telephoto lens again, I would go with the 70-200 f4L IS in a heartbeat. IS is EXTREMELY handy especially with the longer lenses. The difference from when I turn it on to when I turn it off is staggering; I don't have the steadiest hands so it gets shaky real fast in the viewfinder. That being said, even without IS the 70-200 f4 is still a stop faster on the long end and has much faster AF and better image quality so I hear.

[liquidmachine]

I agree that the 70-200 would be a fantastic option. I have the 28-135 that came as the kit lens for my 40D and I don't think I have touched it since after I bought the 70-200 f/4L and my 50mm 1.8 (now replaced with a 50mm 1.4) early on. But I'm also not one for "zoom" and have learned hard lessons in bad glass.