Upgrading from my 18-55mm canon starter lens.

Hey everyone, i am new to the forum and to DSLR photography. I purchased a canon rebel xsi 12.1 mp camera 6 months ago, and i am finding the starter lens to limit my ability to take pictures. I am looking for a lens that will capture mostly landscape/wildlife scenery.

I found two lenses that i am interested in buying, but i would like to get someone else's input who has more experience and knowledge.

1) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I really like this lens, i was wondering if there is anything i should know about this specific lens (cons, etc)

2)Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
i havent been able to try this lens out.

Would both of these lenses provide a good starting point for me, and if you know of a another lens that they would suggest let me know.

P.S. Beginner question, but how come the sigma version of the 28-135mm is so much cheaper?? Is the quality less superior?

Thanks in advance..

alex2388 said:

P.S. Beginner question, but how come the sigma version of the 28-135mm is so much cheaper?? Is the quality less superior?

Click to expand...

I just checked out the Sigma lens, and it appears to not have the image stabilizer. I'm guessing that could affect the pricing by a bit.

Not too sure about the other lenses, as I am quite a new DSLR user as well =p

Both lens are awkward choices. Especially for landscape since they have no wide angle (28 mm = 45 mm FOV in 35 mm equivalent).
For your purposes you need 2 lenses:

• UWA like Sigma 10-20 mm or Tokina 11-16 mm
• Telephoto zoom like 70-300 mm

As a replacement of your kit lens I would rather recommend Canon EF-S 17-55 mm f/2.8 IS.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/

You might want something a little wider for landscapes.

Check out the Canon, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron lenses here. They are users' reviews and so not as scientific as some.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

Like Victor said, both those lenses are not going to be wide angle. Most landscape and scenic shots are wide angle shots. Not all, but most. Your 18-55 kit lens really ought to cover those kinds of shots, so if you're feeling limited, it must be on the long telephoto side. Or, maybe you're just wanting to upgrade to a better lens for normal use.

If you're looking for more reach, let me suggest Canon's superb 55-250 IS USM zoom. This is a very good lens optically, but along the same consumer build quality or a little better than your kit lens. It also won't break the bank.

It's a little harder in the middle ground for a better quality lens to replace your kit lens. Canon's 18-55 IS is a good lens. I'd probably suggest their 15-85 zoom. I don't know about it's initial reviews but it is a great focal length to move to, replacing your kit.

If you really want one of those two lenses you mentioned, I think it doesn't matter which one. Their optical designs are very similar as is their reputations, as far as I know. If you ever move to full frame like a Canon 5DMKII, they will work because that's really what they were designed for, not crop cameras.
--
Cheers, Craig

Hi

As a Sigma lens user (no choice with a Sigma DSLR except M42) if you want a quality image from a Sigma lens you have to go to the EX range of lenses.
I started out with non EX lenses and the image quality was Ho Hum.

The first EX I purchased (15-30mm) was so superior it was like I had a different camera.

The only non EX lens from Sigma that gives a good image is the 70-300mm DG APO, the non APO version is not as good.

My advice to you is that lens quality is more important than the body it is attached to, as long as the body has a decent sensor.

My walk around lens is the 24-70mm 2.8 EX although a lot of Sigma users say the 18-50mm 2.8 EX is better, not in image quality but with the 1.7 crop factor the 18mm end is more useful than the 24mm and the loss of the 70mm back to 50mm is acceptable to gain the better wide angle.
It's up to personal choice I suppose.

Lots of third party lens makers with Canon mount are available and worth checking out.
Regards
PT

Thank you for the response. My only concern is that the sigma 10-20 is extremely expensive (Henrys @ $679). I can get the canon 28-135 for $300 used, i am just wondering what the 28-135 is designed for because the staff at Henrys told me its a must have landscape lens.

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm-4-5-6-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0007U00X0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1267279182&sr=1-1

Is this the correct sigma lens that you recommended?

Thanks,

Check this lens out.
--
Quickly shooter, draw your lens or prepared to get shot.

Me again

Someone posted recently about zooms that go more than 3 times their widest focal length eg 24-70mm is 3 times 24 which equals 72 so that is just inside the 3 times mentioned, zooms greater than this pay the price in image quality.

I had a Sigma 18-200mm OS lens that simply would not give a sharp image, it was OK but incapable of giving a truly sharp image no matter what I did, OS on, OS off, various focal lengths and apertures, it was a lost cause.

So be careful when being tempted by long zooms, if they could do everything then no one would buy a short zoom would they.

By way of a quick example, this pic is a 100% crop just resized for the web, it was taken handheld (braced against a pew) at a christening FL of 70mm on the 24-70 EX, using a Sigma SD10 which is a 3.5Mp DSLR from about 20 feet away,it loses a lot being a JPG from a RAW original but it does show what a good quality lens can produce.
Full frame



Crop of Bible



and lastly closer still



no special sharpening at all.

The Sigma 10-20mm is a specialist wide zoom, with a 1.6 crop from your Canon gives 16-32mm in 35mm terms and like a lot of wide lenses it is slow at F4-5.6.

The 18-55mm kit lens you have, is it the focal length or the image quality that you want to improve on ?

If you replace it with a higher quality lens of similar reach you could offset the cost by selling the old lens.

Have you considered a prime lens ? I have a Sigma 50mm EX F2.8 Macro that is razor sharp and has a 1 to 1 Macro function as well and it was not that expensive plus because it is so sharp you can crop it on your computer and still retain detail, it's like digital zoom but because of the resolution it actually works.
When it comes to lenses, buy quality or save your money.
Regards
PT

alex2388 said:

Hey everyone, i am new to the forum and to DSLR photography. I purchased a canon rebel xsi 12.1 mp camera 6 months ago, and i am finding the starter lens to limit my ability to take pictures. I am looking for a lens that will capture mostly landscape/wildlife scenery.

I found two lenses that i am interested in buying, but i would like to get someone else's input who has more experience and knowledge.

1) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I really like this lens, i was wondering if there is anything i should know about this specific lens (cons, etc)

2)Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
i havent been able to try this lens out.

Click to expand...

What are you finding limiting with your 18-55 mm, focal length or optical quality? The IS version of this lens is optically OK, unless you got a very bad copy of it.

Neither of the two lenses you mention are optically superior to the 18-55 mm IS, they are so-so lenses. And focal length wise, they aren’t telephoto enough for wildlife and aren’t wide enough for landscape.

If you want more reach without breaking the bank, the Canon 55-250 IS is a clear winner, especially if you keep the 18-55 mm to cover some of the wide range.

If you want a wide angle, then I would suggest the Canon 10-22 mm.

Brian A.

alex2388 said:

i am just wondering what the 28-135 is designed for because the staff at Henrys told me its a must have landscape lens.

Click to expand...

I think the staff at Henys must be a bit nutty or you might have not caught it right. Nobody would consider a 28-135 as a "must have" landscape lens. Nobody would ever even describe it as a landscape lens except that any lens can do landscapes in some way or another. There's no set rule, but most people who do a lot of landscape images tend to want a fairly wide angle lens with sharpness corner to corner when stopped down. Most don't care whether a lens is fast or not, just so it performs well at smaller apertures. They are on a tripod where speed is less important and they are stopping down for a deeper depth of field.

Many landscape people either want a wide zoom or a wide prime. Fast max apertures on not important, but performance stopped down is. That 28-135 or 105 is a decent performing lens and certainly is not a fast zoom, but it's not wide, not nearly wide enough to be considered a must have landscape lens.

That all said, I shoot a lot of landscape and don't follow any rules at all. Sometimes I want a wide and sometimes I want to more tightly concentrate on a view. Though most times I use a wide, it's not that wide. I'd say somewhere around 24mm to 35mm on full frame is my range, but many times I've moved right up a 60mm or 85mm prime lens for a scenic shot. It all depends on what the view is.

Where have you met with limitations of your 18-55? Forget Landscape and concentrate on that.

Here's a landscape taken with an 85mm prime lens.



Here's one at 20mm with that Sigma 10-20



Here's another with that 85mm



and another with an 85mm, so you see, I'm not stuck at a rule for using only wide angles. Maybe I'll learn more. LOL



Here's another at 20mm



Here's Vail Pass at 35mm



--
Cheers, Craig

I feel that the starter kit lens is not allowing me to take sharp pictures. I use Aperture 3 software (mac user) to make details stand out on pictures that i take at my cottage. I will be honest i have no idea what a prime lens is or what it does. I am however not disappointed with my starter kit i mean it allows me a great range for a beginner to work with.

The two lenses that i originally posted were lenses that i was told would be a great upgrade. I personally know nothing of lenses, and i have been doing research and reading up on DSLR photography to fill in the blanks.

I suppose i would like to purchase a lens that would be "as mentioned above" a wider angle and that would allow some zoom. I really do not know what lens this would be. Every time i visit a Blacks or a Henrys i feel as if i am pressured to purchase a lens without anyone educating me on what it does.

If the sigma 10-20mm lens is the lens that most of you say would be the choice of upgrade, then i will probably end up purchasing it within the next week.

Please let me and thanks again for everyone patience, i am sure your all sick of answering the same beginner questions..

A 10-20mm lens would give you wide angle but no zoom. For landscapes, sometimes I want wide angle, and sometimes I actually want zoom (Seattle with mountains from my city is an example), and then I use a stitch program to combine photos for a landscape approach.

I have the 28-135 and HAD the 18-55 IS. The 28-135 provides better detail. I wish I had the samples to show you. I took pictures of trees across the street, and you could pick out much better detail of branches and bark for the same focal length with the 28-135 than the 18-55. The 28-135 really isn't very wide on a crop sensor camera. Someone mentioned the 18-135. That would be a better choice if you need something that has some "width".

I didn't like the 55-250. It was cheap, NOT USM and the pics were substandard to the 70-300mm, which is what I ended up buying.

I went through the same dilemma as you and here are the lenses I own now:

Canon EF-S 10-22mm
Canon EF 28-135mm USM IS
Canon EF 70-300mm USM IS
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8
Canon EF 100mm macro.

Other lenses I thought about:

Canon 17-55mm (chose the 10-22 instead for the "fun factor")
Canon 15-85mm (chose the 10-22 instead for the "fun factor")
Canon 18-200mm (mixed reviews on this lens, either love or dislike from users)

I don't think the 28-135mm is a horrible choice, especially at $300. However, you'll likely find yourself using the 18-55mm for wider shots.

alex2388 said:

I feel that the starter kit lens is not allowing me to take sharp pictures. I use Aperture 3 software (mac user) to make details stand out on pictures that i take at my cottage. I will be honest i have no idea what a prime lens is or what it does. I am however not disappointed with my starter kit i mean it allows me a great range for a beginner to work with.

The two lenses that i originally posted were lenses that i was told would be a great upgrade. I personally know nothing of lenses, and i have been doing research and reading up on DSLR photography to fill in the blanks.

I suppose i would like to purchase a lens that would be "as mentioned above" a wider angle and that would allow some zoom. I really do not know what lens this would be. Every time i visit a Blacks or a Henrys i feel as if i am pressured to purchase a lens without anyone educating me on what it does.

If the sigma 10-20mm lens is the lens that most of you say would be the choice of upgrade, then i will probably end up purchasing it within the next week.

Please let me and thanks again for everyone patience, i am sure your all sick of answering the same beginner questions..

Click to expand...

I have a 28-135 and it's not a bad lens, but I wouldn't use it for landscapes; I tend to use anywhere between 16 to 35mm most of the time. So your 18-55 is actually not a bad choice.

You may want to look at how you're shooting pictures if you're not satisfied with the sharpness; I don't have an 18-55 but the IS version is generally considered
to be decent.

Landscapes tend to have a lot of fine detail like leaves; if they're not well-resolved, the whole picture looks like mush. So the usual drill is to put the camera on a tripod, use base ISO, stop down to f/8 or so, lock up the mirror (if your camera supports that) and use a remote release. Yes, all of that. In general, hand-held landscape pictures are snapshots and not worth close scrutiny.

Then if your pictures aren't sharp, you can blame the lens.
--
Leonard Migliore

alex2388 said:

Hey everyone, i am new to the forum and to DSLR photography. I purchased a canon rebel xsi 12.1 mp camera 6 months ago, and i am finding the starter lens to limit my ability to take pictures. I am looking for a lens that will capture mostly landscape/wildlife scenery.

I found two lenses that i am interested in buying, but i would like to get someone else's input who has more experience and knowledge.

1) Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

I really like this lens, i was wondering if there is anything i should know about this specific lens (cons, etc)

2)Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM
i havent been able to try this lens out.

Would both of these lenses provide a good starting point for me, and if you know of a another lens that they would suggest let me know.

P.S. Beginner question, but how come the sigma version of the 28-135mm is so much cheaper?? Is the quality less superior?

Thanks in advance..

Click to expand...

The 18-55IS is a sharp lens but if you feel you must upgrade get something f2.8 like the Tamron 17-50 2.8 or go wider like Tokina 11-16 or longer like the Canon 55-250IS

Teresa At said:

A 10-20mm lens would give you wide angle but no zoom.

Click to expand...

How can a zoom lens have no zoom? A 10-20 mm lens has exactly 2x zoom. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that it isn’t a telephoto lens.

Brian A

Leonard Migliore said:

I have a 28-135 and it's not a bad lens, but I wouldn't use it for landscapes; I tend to use anywhere between 16 to 35mm most of the time. So your 18-55 is actually not a bad choice.

Click to expand...

I have a 16-35 mm lens, and I use that in the 16 to 35 mm range most of the time. But a 28-135 mm lens that does 16 mm. I would put that beyond the ‘not a bad lens’ category, indeed I would put that into the truly remarkable category.

Brian A.

Hugowolf said:

Leonard Migliore said:

I have a 28-135 and it's not a bad lens, but I wouldn't use it for landscapes; I tend to use anywhere between 16 to 35mm most of the time. So your 18-55 is actually not a bad choice.

Click to expand...

I have a 16-35 mm lens, and I use that in the 16 to 35 mm range most of the time. But a 28-135 mm lens that does 16 mm. I would put that beyond the ‘not a bad lens’ category, indeed I would put that into the truly remarkable category.

Click to expand...

I meant, but did not explicitly note, that I used lenses other than the 28-135 for photographs that require the use of focal lengths shorter than 28mm (not to mention longer than 135mm). But, having such a lens, you already know that.

--
Leonard Migliore

The 10-20mm lens are really expensive, and i am looking to spend only about 350 dollars, i found a canon 17-85mm IS USM lens for 325, or the 18-135 for 425. I am guessing, that because the focal length starts on both of these lenses is 17 and 18mm respectably i would still be able to take landscape shots.

I do understand that a 10-20mm lens would be more wide angle but would the 17mm or 18mm version be okay for now?

And are these prices fair 325 for a used good quality 17-85mm (Canadian dollars)

And $425 for 18-135 brand new, but opened box it came with the camera but the owner didnt use it.

And if you guys/girls dont mind letting me know if i should spent the 100 and get the 18-135mm canon. Thank you i appreciate it.

I do not hear good things about the 17-85mm... I say go for the 18-135mm if I were you. But keep in mind, this is just for a better general focal length, not necessarily better IQ over the 18-55
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.