Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Video and Photography

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Sparky Jay (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       12-15-2009, 7:49 PM Reply   
Best walk around lens for 40D for around $500? What do you guys recommend?

(Message edited by wake_upppp on December 15, 2009)
Old    Randy Scagliotti (wakedad33)      Join Date: Oct 2005       12-16-2009, 5:43 AM Reply   
The 2 that I use are the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS & a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, both under $500. If you had $1,200 to spend I would get the Canon 24-105 L f/4 IS.
Old    Rich Dykmans (richd)      Join Date: Oct 2003       12-16-2009, 7:10 AM Reply   
I like Randy's picks, if you can go a little more the new Canon 15-85 IS is nice as well.
Old    Sparky Jay (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       12-16-2009, 7:03 PM Reply   
Well all the reading reviews pays off. Those three were on my list. Randy, between the Canon and the Tamron, any preference? Thanks guys.
Old    D C (dirwoody)      Join Date: Apr 2003       12-16-2009, 8:16 PM Reply   
I have both the 17-85 and the 28-135 and love them both. If it were my only one though, I'd go for the 17-85 because I love the wideness
Old    Sparky Jay (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       12-16-2009, 8:33 PM Reply   
Anyone know about the Tamron 17-50 2.8 that has the vibration control? The specs are different than the Tamron 2.8 without VC. It seems it has higher quality components. B&H has it for $625. The closest Canon is the 17-55 F/2.8 USM IS, but it's $990. How well will the Tamron actually perform wide open at 2.8 is what I'm not sure of.
Old    Randy Scagliotti (wakedad33)      Join Date: Oct 2005       12-16-2009, 10:20 PM Reply   
Sparky, I like them both depending on conditions, If I know I will be shooting in good light I like the 28-135 for the added reach, If I think I will be shooting indoors or in low light I perfer the Tamron 2.8. I don't have the Vibration control on mine but it's a pretty fast lens and very sharp so its not an issue for me. Check out http://www.fredmiranda.com for good deals on used lenses. You could probably pick up both the Canon and Tamron for about $600 to $650 but they go fast.
Old    Rob VLX (skull)      Join Date: May 2002       12-18-2009, 5:40 AM Reply   
I'd check Tokina also.. they probably make something similar to a 28-135 and it is probably 2.8.

When I go on vacation I take the Canon 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS with a nice light XSi body and it works great for almost everything. You can find 28-135's cheap when people buy them with a 40D and 50D kit and dump them.
Old    Randy Scagliotti (wakedad33)      Join Date: Oct 2005       12-18-2009, 6:38 AM Reply   
Found this on the FM forum, another vote for the 28-135, You can pick up a good used one for under $250.

"Anyone feel that there are underrated gems in the Canon lens lineup?

I'll stick my neck out, I bought a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM because I needed a cheap wide range zoom for a particular project. I didn't expect too much from this lens because it was affordable, not an L, with a wide range. Also I use it on a 5D2 which is sure to test any lenses' resolution, and with a FM review rating of 7.8 I didn't expect anything impressive.

Well, as you can guess I am blown away by this lens. While no lens is perfect, at f8 this cheap zoom looks satisfyingly sharp to me, and I am a completely retentive pixel peeper, my middle name is 100%."
Old    Clubmyke (clubmyke)      Join Date: Aug 2004       12-24-2009, 11:39 AM Reply   
tough one.. the only l-lense is the 17-40 and its a bit to wide angle for portraits and not enough reach.

i have a 70-200is f4 and 24-70 f2.8 and that 24-70 is on my camera 90% of the time.

i would maybe look at canon 85mm prime
Old    Barry Waste (barry)      Join Date: Apr 2002       12-24-2009, 12:42 PM Reply   
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=246&sort=7&cat=43&page=2

I've shot with this lens before and it's nice for the money. The copy I used would hunt in low light once in awhile-missing focus, but that was the only drawback to it. Nice and sharp, otherwise.
Old    Sparky Jay (wake_upppp)      Join Date: Nov 2003       12-24-2009, 5:15 PM Reply   
Thanks again guys. I do want the 24-105 L, but just can't right now. Just picked up the 70-200 f/4 L so have to save up for another L, so sticking with my 18-200 IS. It's a little heavy for a walk around, but I do like having the range if I need it. I'll pick up the L later then prolly sell the 18-200 and put it towards the new one. Happy Holidays!

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 8:24 PM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us