Canon 40D "kit" with EF 28-135 f/3.5 -5.6 USM lens?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Gary Seven, Dec 11, 2007.

  1. Gary Seven

    Gary Seven Guest

    Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California) and
    am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate so
    good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
    definitely time to trade up.

    Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type) or
    of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on the
    aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second lens
    based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
    results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus the
    occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

    Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

    /G7
     
    Gary Seven, Dec 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary Seven

    plb49 Guest

    It's a nice lens, but I replaced it with the 17-85 EF-S to get the
    wider angle. My son continues to enjoy the 28-135. I'd suggest you
    decide if the wide end or the tele end is more important for your
    needs. Neither is great for what I consider low light; both do OK
    with close-ups.

    Paul B.
     
    plb49, Dec 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary Seven wrote:
    [...]
    f3.5 is not exactly a low-light lens. It is a standard kit lens apperture,
    optimized/compromized for convenience and broad range
    vacation/holiday/family photography.
    Actually they are so slow that manufactures don't recommend using
    tele-converters on them because the resulting apperture may not be large
    enough for the auto-focus to work properly.

    If you want a true low-light lens then you should look into the lower f2.x
    or even better f1.x range. Of course those true low-light performers are
    mostly prime (= fixed focal length) lenses and with a few notable exception
    quite pricy.

    jue
     
    Jürgen Exner, Dec 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Gary Seven

    TRoss Guest

    I have been very pleased with this lens. This has been my walk-around
    lens for over three years, and there is very little I dislike about
    it. I think it's nice lens for the price.

    My only complaint is 28mm isn't wide enough for me on a camera with a
    1.6x crop factor. If it had been available at the time I probably
    would have gotten the EF-S 17-85.

    I also wish it were faster - it really isn't a low-light lens. The IS
    does help, but you'll still need some sort of support for daybreak and
    sunset shots.

    If the budget allows for it and you can live with a lens with less
    reach, take a look at the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.


    TR
     
    TRoss, Dec 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Gary Seven

    Annika1980 Guest

    The 28-135 IS is a great all-purpose lens. It is the lens I recommend
    if you just want one lens. If low-light shooting is important you
    might augment it with a 50 f/1.8 which is a very good lens for less
    than $100. If a wider angle is more to your liking, I'd go with the
    17-40 f/4L, which is an excellent lens but a bit more pricey.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 11, 2007
    #5
  6. Gary Seven

    Dirty Harry Guest


    The 28-135 is an "ok" lens. The 17-85 varies from nasty to complete junk.
    If you're doing low light shots of static objects just use a tripod. I've
    owned the 17-85 and sold it, used another 17-85 and it was even worse then
    the first one! (shots available on request) The corner sharpness is
    non-existent at 17mm. FM-reviews is a great place to read up on these
    lenses.

    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222&sort=7&cat=27&page=3

    My advice is to take all the reviews with a grain of salt since anyone can
    post. Someone new to photography might say a lens is great, and someone
    who's been around a while might want to throw it at the pavement ;-)

    A good lens on a budget is the 28-105
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=206&sort=7&cat=27&page=2
    this one, not the 4.5 version
     
    Dirty Harry, Dec 11, 2007
    #6
  7. Gary Seven

    Paul J Gans Guest

    On the other hand, while admitting that I've never used the 40D,
    I've read much (here) about its ability to use higher ISO settings.
    In that case ISO 200 or ISO 400 would make up the missing stop
    or two without any trouble.

    I do this with my 300D and am quite happy with the results.
     
    Paul J Gans, Dec 12, 2007
    #7
  8. Gary Seven

    jean Guest

    As others have said, decide if you like wider or longer shots. For wider,
    you can't go wrong with the 17-40 f4 L and for longer (and all around lens),
    the 24-105 f4 L IS is great. Don't worry about low light, the 40D works
    well at 1600 and 3200 ISO.

    Jean
     
    jean, Dec 12, 2007
    #8
  9. Gary Seven

    Annika1980 Guest

    Or listen to those of us who have taken thousands of shots with the
    lenses we recommend.
     
    Annika1980, Dec 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Gary Seven

    EAL Guest

    Consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, designed to be the normal range zoom
    for 1.6x crop factor cameras. Very sharp lens.

    It is like having a 42-137mm lens on a medium format camera like a
    Hasselblad. And if you are more used to 35mm, you can compare it to
    27-88mm on a 35mm.

    The 28-135mm is designed for the 35mm format, not for the AP-C format.
    Might be okay if you like tele lenses but not if you need or like wide
    angle. Photo beginners want the power of tele, pros are inclined much
    more toward the excitement of wide.

    Ed
     
    EAL, Dec 12, 2007
    #10
  11. Now there's a blanket statement to which I take exception. I don't find
    either big glass nor wide angles exciting in and of themselves. In the
    right circumstances, either can be, ah, gratifying.
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 12, 2007
    #11
  12. Gary Seven

    Dirty Harry Guest

    That's my point, anyone can post an opinion, on here or on FM reviews. Best
    not to listen to one person but to read many opinions and come to your own
    conclusion on what's best for you.
     
    Dirty Harry, Dec 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Gary Seven

    Paul Furman Guest

    Your needs suggest a wider lens and normal needs suggest wider also.
    Unfortunately I think you would then be stuck with either the crummy kit
    lens or an expensive f/2.8 version. If the f/4 lens Annnika suggested
    works into the budget, that's probably a smart compromise. You may not
    notice the 28mm limitation though it is significant. What camera do you
    you use now? What lens?
     
    Paul Furman, Dec 13, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.