OK Guys .. down to Father's Day Purchase .. help.

I saw somwhere a calculation for the 24-70L. The logice works even better for the 17-40. The 28-135 is easy to sell either on ebay or try the fred miranda forum.

As for the 'Juli manual flash' stuff, it is actually called dragging the shutter and it works awesome. I do it all the time. It works even better if you set C Fn 4 to '1' and place the focus on the' ' button. The trick here is to focus, then release the ' ' button and then take the shot. The camera thinks it is in manual focus mode as well as manual exposure and averages the flash output across the entire frame, rather than baising it to one focus point. It works really well.

BTW, earlier you gave me credit for being a 'seasoned' photographer, not so, just learning. I am really good with the technical stuff however. I am working very hard on learning to see creatively. It takes time.

As for shots with the 17-40 check out

http://www.pbase.com/fotosbym/montreal

http://www.pbase.com/fotosbym/saxfest

Almost all are with 17-40. A few are also with 24-70L. Check the EXIF to see which.

My personal fave with the 24-70

DOrtiz said:

First let me start by thanking you for the detailed and most
informative response.

peteb said:

Dave,

Another thought. What are you trying to get to as a future? You
are currently buying the 50 to get around low light issues and to
do portraits etc. right?

Click to expand...

You are 100% correct and hit the nail right on the head here.

DOrtiz said:

What I'd suggest is thinking about your final lens lineup. Adding
the 50 sounds like it is to get around short-comings of the 28-135
for you?

Click to expand...

Yes, I think my experience with the 28-135 under low light has left
me quite discouraged at times. Although I don't place the full
blame on the lens, as I'm sure my skills aren't quite up there with
the pros who would know what to do under low light situations.

DOrtiz said:

Why not think seriously about what you would buy instead, if you
had nothing? The 50/1.4 and 28-135 would run you what - $700 new?
You can probably flip that 28-135 for $350-$400 still on e-bay.

Click to expand...

You're correct that both lens would probably run around that
figure, new.

DOrtiz said:

What I'm suggesting as another thought is to save your cash and get
yourself some serious glass. The 24-70 2.8L is outrageously
expensive, but can be had from 17th Street photo for about another
$400-$500 over the cost of the 50/1.4 and 28-135 together.

Click to expand...

This is where I'd wind up living in the shed with my dog. Not that
our little K9 lives out there, but she'd throw him out too, just to
spite me. :-(
I don't think my level of knowledge regarding photography warrents
me getting such a top quality lens. I looked for this lens and
it's almost as expensive as the camera itself. OUCH! Maybe in the
distant future, when I can fully understand all this, and also
learn post-processing I may look into one of the "professional"
lens.

For now, I'm just a wannabe, and I would feel like somewhat of a
fool having such expensive glass and producing the photos I do.
That kind of equipment is more (IMO) for the pros and folks who
know what they're doing. I still have much to learn, and as many
say, "It's not the camera that makes the picture, but what's behind
it." Although that "L" series lens would sure be nice to have.

Thanks again Pete, and I appreciate your detailed explanation and
that lens does look awesome. Unfortunately (at $1,000+) it's way
out of my reach. But who knows ... I may win the lotto this
weekend.

I'm curious .. do you (or anyone) have any shots taken with the "L"
series lens? I'm still hopeful I can see some Canon 50mm 1.8
and/or 1.4 shots for comparison.

Regards,
Dave
---
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
...ƒotos by M

Canon stuff, HP stuff, Lowepro stuff, Hoya stuff, Tamrac stuff, lots of stuff.

Hi Emjayprice,

I'm currently at lunch and will now look at your work. However, let me say this pic you attached here is absolutely FABULOUS! That is professional quality stuff there, my friend.

I'll need to check out the EXIF on those. Incredible clarity, and focus is right on.

Thanks again for your tips, and suggestions.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Dave,

I'll have to chime in here and put my reccomendation on the L lens as well. I started out with a D60 and the 50 1.4. Awesome combination, but the prime can be very limiting. After upgrading to the 10D I decided to look into getting an L lens. I found a good deal on a used 28-70L (still one fine lens) and have been most impressed. For a zoom, I see very little difference in quality from the 50 1.4, and 2.8 is fast enough for me. So as Pete suggested, selling the 28-135 on ebay, and using that money plus the money it would cost for the 50 1.4 and buying an L my be cheaper long term. My only change would be to get a used 28-70L (about $800) instead of the 24-70L. With this option you would be spending about the same amount of money as keeping the 28-135 and buying the 50 1.4.

That being said, the 50 1.4 is a nice lens, I just never seem to use it since I got the 28-70L.

If you are still opting for a 50mm prime, I think I would go for the 1.8 and save the extra money for other purchases.

Doug
http://www.pbase.com/deddleman

peteb said:

Another thought. What are you trying to get to as a future? You
are currently buying the 50 to get around low light issues and to
do portraits etc. right?

What I'd suggest is thinking about your final lens lineup. Adding
the 50 sounds like it is to get around short-comings of the 28-135
for you?

Why not think seriously about what you would buy instead, if you
had nothing? The 50/1.4 and 28-135 would run you what - $700 new?
You can probably flip that 28-135 for $350-$400 still on e-bay.

What I'm suggesting as another thought is to save your cash and get
yourself some serious glass. The 24-70 2.8L is outrageously
expensive, but can be had from 17th Street photo for about another
$400-$500 over the cost of the 50/1.4 and 28-135 together.

I went straight to this route myself, and I've read of many others
who vary rarely break out the 50 once they have the 24-70.

The 28-135 lens is nice, but nothing compared to the 24-70. Having
the constant 2.8 through the range really makes a difference and
the AF speed is out of this world. A friend of mine just did the
same, he originally got the 28-135IS and 70-200IS. He just got the
24-70 and wonders why he bothered with the 28-135 in the first
place. He also purchased the 50/1.4 recently (before the 24-70).
I wonder how much service it will now see?

This may not be a Father's day purchase, you might need to save a
bit longer, but before you drop more money on another lens to work
around compromises on kit you already have, think about your long
term plan and ask, "what do I see myself finally owning, and how do
I get there with the most fun and the least cost?"

If the 28-135 is really holding you back, and you cannot afford the
24-70L then maybe you still want to take your route - but I'd ask
yourself do you really, really need that 50 and is it in your plan
of the future?

p.s. as a side note, I've found wives much more supportive if you
demonstrate and commit to getting rid of other stuff as new stuff
comes in. The 24-70 would be 1 lens instead of 2, which for some
reason always appeals to the wife!

These are just my thoughts and may not apply to you or your
situation, but ultimately I think this is where you'll get to.

My advice:

Get the 24-70L
If you cannot afford it (yet?) stick the 28-135 and learn to get
the most out of what you do have. Buying lenses to overcome the
shortcomings of others is going to be an ultimately expensive and
unrewarding experience I think.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

Pete.

DOrtiz said:

Hi Guys,

It's me again, the newbie. Wifey (the boss) had "authorized" me to
make a puchase for Father's Day. She says it's OK to go with
either of these lenses, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 OR the Canon 50mm f/1.8

My question to is (I can always count on you), what do you suggest,
and if possible, why do you suggest it? I plan on showing her your
replies to validate the purchase. Your professional and/or
personal opinion/advise is most appreciated.

Thanks again, in advance for taking the time to respond. I made
the 10D purcase based on your feedback, and have been most happy
with the decision to do so.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Click to expand...

Why not get the 1.8 and then go do something fun with extra $$?

Or better yet, tell her since you are getting the economical lens, you might as well toss in a Sigma 20mm 1.8 or the Canon 85mm 1.8? You will have plenty more school functions to shoot and might as well have your focal lengths covered ;-).

Lisa

DOrtiz said:

Hi Guys,

It's me again, the newbie. Wifey (the boss) had "authorized" me to
make a puchase for Father's Day. She says it's OK to go with
either of these lenses, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 OR the Canon 50mm f/1.8

My question to is (I can always count on you), what do you suggest,
and if possible, why do you suggest it? I plan on showing her your
replies to validate the purchase. Your professional and/or
personal opinion/advise is most appreciated.

Thanks again, in advance for taking the time to respond. I made
the 10D purcase based on your feedback, and have been most happy
with the decision to do so.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

I can testify to the truth in what Pete has said. I have a closet full of lenses, several of them covering the same focal distance. I would have saved a fortune if I had put together some sort of plan. On the other hand, I can't handle the weight of L glass, so I will continue to stumble along until I have a kit I am thrilled with.

Lisa

peteb said:

Buying lenses to overcome the
shortcomings of others is going to be an ultimately expensive and
unrewarding experience I think.

Click to expand...

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

I have the Canon 50mm f1.8 II lens but its on a Canon Elan7 film camera.

I have a few black and white photos up on http://homepage.mac.com/eholtam/PhotoAlbum11.html that you can check out.

DOrtiz said:

I posted this in Diane's reply, but if anyone has any shots taken
with either Canon 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 II that you'd be willing to
share, I'd love to see them.

Thanks again for your valued and most appreciated feedback.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

Hi Doug,

Seems like good solid advice, from you and others. I can relate to spending the extra cash and not being "totally" happy. Sometimes I feel I should have waited to get the "full" package, done correctly the first time -- however, we learn from our mistakes.

That said, maybe the 1.8 may be the way to go. Then I can start saving for an "L" series lens and practice while saving for it. Who knows .. maybe by the time I get it, I'll be worthy of carrying such a fine piece of glass around ;-)

Thanks again Doug. Appreciate the sound advice.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your feedback, and for responding. The advice here is very solid and appreciated. Maybe I should go with the 1.8, and save for that fine glass (L Lens). I never knew a lens can zoom in while "maintaining" the same f/stop. That would be awesome, and I'm sure the L lens are better made, and offer better pictures. Hmmmmm, something to consider, but as I've said .. I have to earn the right to carry one of those around.

Thanks for the advice and information.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

The 24-70 is also parfocal (as are some other high end zooms) meaning that not only does aperture not chance with zoom, neither does focus.

So what I mean is you can focus at 70mm, zoom out to 24 and still be perfectly focused. That's pretty handy if you are manually focusing for instance. Did I mention it had a pretty usable macro as well? ;o)

DOrtiz said:

Hi Lisa,

Thanks for your feedback, and for responding. The advice here is
very solid and appreciated. Maybe I should go with the 1.8, and
save for that fine glass (L Lens). I never knew a lens can zoom in
while "maintaining" the same f/stop. That would be awesome, and
I'm sure the L lens are better made, and offer better pictures.
Hmmmmm, something to consider, but as I've said .. I have to earn
the right to carry one of those around.

Thanks for the advice and information.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Hi Pete,

Thanks for responding and for your feedback. If I had the funds, believe me I would get one of those. The features clearly denote quality, and something anyone would just love to have. However, for some of us it's a tad difficult to do, so we must (sadly) make what we have work -- or at least try to.

It will be a few months (maybe longer) before I can even attempt to buy an "L" series lens. However, given their expensive price tag, and taking into consideration I'll probably own just ONE.. which one would you recommend for all around use?

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

LOL....too funny., But I agree.....

Frank Weston said:

DOrtiz said:

Hi Guys,

It's me again, the newbie. Wifey (the boss) had "authorized" me to
make a puchase for Father's Day. She says it's OK to go with
either of these lenses, the Canon 50mm f/1.4 OR the Canon 50mm f/1.8

My question to is (I can always count on you), what do you suggest,
and if possible, why do you suggest it? I plan on showing her your
replies to validate the purchase. Your professional and/or
personal opinion/advise is most appreciated.

Thanks again, in advance for taking the time to respond. I made
the 10D purcase based on your feedback, and have been most happy
with the decision to do so.

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
Frank Weston - http://www.weston.smugmug.com

Click to expand...

--
Canon 10D
28-135 IS
50 f/1.4
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
http://www.pbase.com/joewat

Hi Dave,

I think that yu should be thankful to have a wife that let you get a lens for Fathers day. I would ask her to put the 50 1.4 dollars into a kitty fund to be added to later. That way you can experience a 'L', and forever enjoy your shots. The focusing, and feel of these marvels is to be savored, and enjoyed. I will make the 17-40L my next INVESTMENT.... =) I have to call it that for the wife to join in the realization that it is a much better investment for your money to wait for the 17-40L, because you will enjoy the lens more.... But hey that me talking. The 50 1.4 is a wonderful lens, and it will provide you with the enjoyment you want, but the 1.8 is just as good picture quality wise. My 50 1.8 is sharp, and I have not needed the faster speed of the 1.4 to date, so I can't bother with if I would like that one better.

I hope that you can get the 'L' but if not get the 50 1.8, and get the 17-40L sooner.

Jim

I don't think there is any such thing as 'just one' L lens!

Seriously - it really depends on what you want to shoot and how.

Today I have just one lens - the 24-70L. This covered me an effective focal length/framing of 38.4mm-112mm. This was easy for me to visualise since my prior camera was a very well travelled Fuzi 4700Z with 36mm-108mm effective zoom.

I rarely found myself wishing for much on either end of that for the shots I typically wanted so 24-70 seems a good starting range.

I would seriously expect me, over time to add the 16-35L and 70-200LIS although in which order I couldn't say. For me the 24-70L was the 'must have' range, and also the most demanding from a zoom quality perspective.

The only reason I could see me adding the 50mm, or a similar prime, is to go stealth mode. The 10D, BG-ED3 grip, 24-70L with lens hood looks fairly intimidating and draws a fair bit of attention in a crowd. The 10D without the grip and a 50mm would probably look and feel like a P&S again lol!

If I were to have only 1 L lens it would be the 24-70 again, and again after that.

DOrtiz said:

Hi Pete,

Thanks for responding and for your feedback. If I had the funds,
believe me I would get one of those. The features clearly denote
quality, and something anyone would just love to have. However,
for some of us it's a tad difficult to do, so we must (sadly) make
what we have work -- or at least try to.

It will be a few months (maybe longer) before I can even attempt to
buy an "L" series lens. However, given their expensive price tag,
and taking into consideration I'll probably own just ONE.. which
one would you recommend for all around use?

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

I know I keep banging on about the L. Please don't take it the wrong way, I'm not you and your choice is of course your own.

I took one route, which was straight to the L. I've seen a lot of people wobble their way through 4 or 5 lenses and get to the L eventually anyway just have a frustraiting time doing it. They spend time wondering "If I had that lens or if I had this lens" and seem to fight kit all the time. Many, many others settle in the middle ground and are happy with what they shoot with.

I've seen your enthusiam and hunger for increasing knowledge and tools and I just read this as the wandering type, and would ideally like to try and save you some pain or frustraition on the way through!

Last Christmas a good friend loaned me, for 3 days, his 10D, 70-200IS, 28-135IS, 550EX and a Sigma 180 Macro. Needless to say this hooked me, and whilst the 28-135 was a good lens, it wasn't great. The 70-200IS was awesome, as expected and should be.

If I were anywhere near your neck of the woods, I'd let you play with the 24-70 just to get a sens of it and whether you think it is value for money compared to your needs.

Anyway, I'll get off your back now, hope you see my commentsas intended - trying to be helpful, but I'm not in your shoes.

DOrtiz said:

Hi Pete,

Thanks for responding and for your feedback. If I had the funds,
believe me I would get one of those. The features clearly denote
quality, and something anyone would just love to have. However,
for some of us it's a tad difficult to do, so we must (sadly) make
what we have work -- or at least try to.

It will be a few months (maybe longer) before I can even attempt to
buy an "L" series lens. However, given their expensive price tag,
and taking into consideration I'll probably own just ONE.. which
one would you recommend for all around use?

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I have to admit, these lens certainly are tempting, and if for no other reason, I may just stick with the 1.8 $70.00 and start saving for that gem. However, I'll only be able to get one (and another will most likely be far away). That said, if you look at my gallery (excuse the poor pics -- I'm trying), do you think that 17-40L will suffice. Also is that lens smaller in physical size than the 28-135(IS) f/ 3.5?

I think I've covered what I'd like to do in my gallery, and I'm wondering if I had to choose just ONE "L" lens, which one I should go with. You say the 17-40L (I'll check B&H for the price now). Any other suggestions? Keeping in mind in this case that money is certainly an option ;-)

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Hi Pete,

Taking into consideration money is a factor, can you please have a quick look at my gallery to see what I intend to do with the lens and make a suggestion as to which one would better serve my needs? Thanks for responding, and for the valued feedback. It's quite helpful.

Regards,
Dave

peteb said:

I don't think there is any such thing as 'just one' L lens!

Seriously - it really depends on what you want to shoot and how.

Today I have just one lens - the 24-70L. This covered me an
effective focal length/framing of 38.4mm-112mm. This was easy for
me to visualise since my prior camera was a very well travelled
Fuzi 4700Z with 36mm-108mm effective zoom.

I rarely found myself wishing for much on either end of that for
the shots I typically wanted so 24-70 seems a good starting range.

I would seriously expect me, over time to add the 16-35L and
70-200LIS although in which order I couldn't say. For me the
24-70L was the 'must have' range, and also the most demanding from
a zoom quality perspective.

The only reason I could see me adding the 50mm, or a similar prime,
is to go stealth mode. The 10D, BG-ED3 grip, 24-70L with lens hood
looks fairly intimidating and draws a fair bit of attention in a
crowd. The 10D without the grip and a 50mm would probably look and
feel like a P&S again lol!

If I were to have only 1 L lens it would be the 24-70 again, and
again after that.

Click to expand...

--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Hi Pete,

No nooo, my friend. I don't consider your advice and suggestions as "being on my back" at all. In fact, I'm grateful that you're taking the time to explain all this and provide your personal feedback. This is how we learn, by listening to folks who have far more experience than your own. Everyone here has been most helpful, and as I mentioned .. the purchase of the 10D was partly based on interaction with the great folks here.

So please do not hesitate to provide your comments, tips, and suggestions. Bad or good, I appreciate them, and never take anyone's comments personally, or negatively. I learn from your comments, and look forward to the day when I too will be able to provide such tips to others (like me) who are just starting out.

Thanks again.

Regards,
Dave

peteb said:

I know I keep banging on about the L. Please don't take it the
wrong way, I'm not you and your choice is of course your own.

I took one route, which was straight to the L. I've seen a lot of
people wobble their way through 4 or 5 lenses and get to the L
eventually anyway just have a frustraiting time doing it. They
spend time wondering "If I had that lens or if I had this lens" and
seem to fight kit all the time. Many, many others settle in the
middle ground and are happy with what they shoot with.

I've seen your enthusiam and hunger for increasing knowledge and
tools and I just read this as the wandering type, and would ideally
like to try and save you some pain or frustraition on the way
through!

Last Christmas a good friend loaned me, for 3 days, his 10D,
70-200IS, 28-135IS, 550EX and a Sigma 180 Macro. Needless to say
this hooked me, and whilst the 28-135 was a good lens, it wasn't
great. The 70-200IS was awesome, as expected and should be.

If I were anywhere near your neck of the woods, I'd let you play
with the 24-70 just to get a sens of it and whether you think it is
value for money compared to your needs.

Anyway, I'll get off your back now, hope you see my commentsas
intended - trying to be helpful, but I'm not in your shoes.

Click to expand...

--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Hi Jim,

I found this lens (see if it's the right one) on B&H, but it seems slow f/4L. Am I misreading something, or do these lens fucntion differently?
$649.00 is not that bad a price. I thought it would be in the $1000.00 range.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=279582&is=USA

Regards,
Dave

Jim Garnish said:

Hi Dave,

I think that yu should be thankful to have a wife that let you get
a lens for Fathers day. I would ask her to put the 50 1.4 dollars
into a kitty fund to be added to later. That way you can
experience a 'L', and forever enjoy your shots. The focusing, and
feel of these marvels is to be savored, and enjoyed. I will make
the 17-40L my next INVESTMENT.... =) I have to call it that for
the wife to join in the realization that it is a much better
investment for your money to wait for the 17-40L, because you will
enjoy the lens more.... But hey that me talking. The 50 1.4 is a
wonderful lens, and it will provide you with the enjoyment you
want, but the 1.8 is just as good picture quality wise. My 50 1.8
is sharp, and I have not needed the faster speed of the 1.4 to
date, so I can't bother with if I would like that one better.

I hope that you can get the 'L' but if not get the 50 1.8, and get
the 17-40L sooner.

Jim

Click to expand...

--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Hi Pete,

Found this one on B&H



It's twice as much as the 17-40, but seems faster f/2.8L

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=getItemDetail&Q=&sku=264304&is=USA&si=inc#goto_itemInfo

Any suggestions?

Regards,
Dave

peteb said:

Seriously - it really depends on what you want to shoot and how.

Today I have just one lens - the 24-70L. This covered me an
effective focal length/framing of 38.4mm-112mm. This was easy for
me to visualise since my prior camera was a very well travelled
Fuzi 4700Z with 36mm-108mm effective zoom.

I rarely found myself wishing for much on either end of that for
the shots I typically wanted so 24-70 seems a good starting range.

I would seriously expect me, over time to add the 16-35L and
70-200LIS although in which order I couldn't say. For me the
24-70L was the 'must have' range, and also the most demanding from
a zoom quality perspective.

The only reason I could see me adding the 50mm, or a similar prime,
is to go stealth mode. The 10D, BG-ED3 grip, 24-70L with lens hood
looks fairly intimidating and draws a fair bit of attention in a
crowd. The 10D without the grip and a 50mm would probably look and
feel like a P&S again lol!

If I were to have only 1 L lens it would be the 24-70 again, and
again after that.

DOrtiz said:

Hi Pete,

Thanks for responding and for your feedback. If I had the funds,
believe me I would get one of those. The features clearly denote
quality, and something anyone would just love to have. However,
for some of us it's a tad difficult to do, so we must (sadly) make
what we have work -- or at least try to.

It will be a few months (maybe longer) before I can even attempt to
buy an "L" series lens. However, given their expensive price tag,
and taking into consideration I'll probably own just ONE.. which
one would you recommend for all around use?

Regards,
Dave
--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/

Click to expand...

--
New member of the EOS-10D Family
homepage: http://dortiz.net
email: [email protected]

There are a number of considerations. First one is what you are shooting, as you note.

It looks like the bulk of what you shoot is family, portrait and scenes (walking around type stuff I guess) like the fairs and that sort of thing. If I may sum that up, you are currently interested in taking great photos of the things around you and that you see, but are not currently spending time to go and look for things to shoot - for instance bird/nature photography or landscapes/architecture or macro flower/insects.

This helps a lot ;o) You are basically in the category of walkabout, indoor portrait and family. The 28-135 is a good lens, really a great lens for the cash, but it has its limitations, as you are finding. The IS only gets you so far, the AF speed is not fantastic and it needs stopping down a little to get good results (nothing unique about that). I personally also felt it had a colour cast towards the yellow on it when I used one - but I was pretty new to digital SLR so my be talking turnips.

The lenses that would be logical progressions are along the lines of.

EF 16-35 f2.8L
EF 17-40 f4L
EF 24-70 f2.8L

Second hand there are

EF 17-35 f2.8L
EF 20-35 f2.8L
EF 28-70 f2.8L
EF 28-80 f2.8L

There are a number of 3rd party lenses that play in this space also. Some are very well respected and tend to play around $400 or so if I recall correctly.

I wanted to stay with Canon. I intend to buy into the Canon machine and felt more comfortable that Canon would work with Canon longer. 3rd party lenses can often be updated to work with newer bodies, but I didn't want to be there. That said, I might buy a Sigma in the future - who knows?

There was a great comparison of the 24-70/28-70 and 28-80 somewhere, I cannot find it now but the 24-70 was ahead on a few points against the others. The main differential against the 28-70 was, I think 1/2 the minimum focus distance and weather/dust sealing. The 28-80 I think had a rotating front element still making filers problematic.

Ultimately I took the 24-70 as it would be brand new (warranty, service life/spares) and it was slightly wider. The 28-70 might have had me wishing for a wide angle by now!

Of the wide zooms, currently the 2 Canon choices are the 16-35 and the 17-40. The 16-35 is an expensive lens (more than 24-70) and not perfect. Wide and ultra-wide zooms are very hard to make well, hence costly and flawed to some degree. The constant 2.8 of the 16-35 makes it very versatile but it is expensive. The 17-40 as you have found is cheaper but it is somewhat lower quality than the most of Canon's L range. It is a great lens again, for that money, but optically probably not up to the 16-35 or 24-70. Being a little slower it is a little less able for indoor photography than the rest, even your 28-135 at the wide end!

The older L zooms were good in their day, but in my limited research seemed to be more plagued by flare (an ultra-wide zoom bane) and were now starting to run short of parts in some cases for future life.

I'm thinking that as I'm already covered to 24mm at 2.8 then a very fast and wide prime would be better for the few occasions I need it. It isn't going to be used often, so why spend a ton on it? The only downside is that there aren't many good, cheap ultra-wide primes either... The Sigma 20/1.8 is the closest at $370 and that's pretty cheap for the wide end. If you want to sacrafice speed - the Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6 for $660 looks the best bet.

So, I'd still take the 24-70L first and only if needed. 17th Street Photo carry the USA version for $1138 and I've seen them recommended around here. http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=8014A002

That was my reasoning and logic, might be wrong or flawed for some but I'm happy with the outcome. I did around 4 months of lens research, reading reviews and comparisons, doing excel tables of lens ratings, focal lengths, multipliers, costs in Japan vs. US, tax no tax etc. and in the end, this just made the most economical sense (for me).

DOrtiz said:

Hi Pete,

Taking into consideration money is a factor, can you please have a
quick look at my gallery to see what I intend to do with the lens
and make a suggestion as to which one would better serve my needs?
Thanks for responding, and for the valued feedback. It's quite
helpful.

Regards,
Dave

Click to expand...

--
http://public.fotki.com/wibble/public_display/