Lenses Help?

[chickrockguitar]

Hey guys,
I wonder if any you budding photographers can help?

Well, the warmer weather is coming now, I promised myself I'd get me a new lens. I am looking for standard walkabout lens AND eventually a new Tele lens.

Firstly, Standard lens,
I did have a Canon 17-85mm IS USM, but I sold that because I was just changing lenses far too much - I found that for what I wanted to use the lens for, it was just a little too short. I am thinking about the Canon 28-135 IS USM as my walkabout lens. Now, I WOULD like something a little lower... like a 17 or 18, but I cant find anything like that. 17-135 would be ideal, lol. But I do want to stick with canon and I would like the IS and the USM on the lens. Plus my budget isn't huge. So yeah, the Canon 28-135 IS USM seems to be a good go. Does anyone have this lens or know of something better? Also does anyone know if this is a wide angle lens? I would like wide angle to shoot scenery.

Tele lens,
At the moment I cant afford two lenses, BUT that doesn't stop me looking, right? lol! I have the Canon 33-250 IS lens (sadly no USM). But I would like something a little longer, but no so long that I need a tripod. Now, I know they do a Cannon 70-300 IS USM one but that's over £400. They also do one without the USM, which is not bad. Does anyone have this? Or does anyone know of any other good tele lens, again, I want to stick with canon.

Sorry, I am very amateur-ish when it comes to lenses...

Thanks for any help you can provide.

(when I get my new lens, I promise to stop neglecting you all and take more photos of Marlee like I used to, lol).

[Robbie34]

I have the 28-135mm IS USM lens and the 70-300mm IS USM lens.  I tend to use the 28/135mm most of the time and leave it attached to my camera.  It's quite a heavy lens.

I also have the 75-300mm USM lens that I no longer use.

The problem with these lenses is they are not fast, but being IS they compensate for their lack of speed so you can use them at relatively low shutter speeds.  If you are prepared to use a tripod then the 75-300mm lens is worth having, but not really ideal for taking pics of Marlee unless the conditions are bright, when you would not need a tripod.
 

[Nicola]

I have the 28-135mm and I really like it, it's a really good general purpose lens although as Robbie said it's not the fastest. For the price though and for what it does it's a very good buy. I don't use it so much for taking photos of the dogs but it's my travel photography lens - it's portable, can put up with quite a bit of bashing around and it wasn't so expensive that I'd be devastated if anything happened to it so it's ideal for travelling with.

With an unlimited budget my real choice of general purpose lens is the f/4 24-105mm L but it's not cheap - http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-24-105mm-f-4-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx

Regarding wide angle lenses I posted this on another thread on the same topic recently

A true wide angle lens is going to be either a fixed focal length or a zoom which starts anywhere from around 12mm up to 35mm (less than 12mm is going to give fisheye effects). Wide angle lenses can give distorted effects and change image perspective and are often used by architectural photographers, you'll start to notice this at anything below 24mm, that's wide enough to start giving curved effects to photos and changes in perspective. What kind of photos do you want to take with the lens? If it's normal portraiture/landscape type stuff then something like the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 is a good lens or my own pick would be the 24-105mm f/4 L lens but it's expensive, neither of these are true wide angle lenses though although at the 24mm you're getting into the 'distortion' realm. I have an 18mm lens which I sometimes use for taking portrait shots when I want to get the distorted effect, like the photo below but I don't use it for everyday photography...

[Helen]

I can't afford an L lens so all mine in the last year have been taken on the 28 - 135mm lens - although not what I would really like I think I manage quite well with it 

[chickrockguitar]

Thanks for the replys everyone!

Nicola and Robbie, I am very tempted at this point by the 28-135, but anything else you'd suggest? Most of my photos are of Animals - 90% being the mutts, lol.

Any better suggestions of an all round lens (length somthing like 28-135) and a tele lens - without a tripod? I have a 400D Cam. Is there a good (cheap-ish) fast lens for action shots for the dogs running/moving? My buget is like £300-400 max per lens really, so I would think the L series is out.

Thanks again guys.

[Helen]

I don't think the action shots are too bad on the 28-135mm... 

[chickrockguitar]

Wow! Nice!
Okay, that has swade me!

Now for the tele lens... lol.
What do you guys use? (the longer the better, hehe). Bareing in mind that I'd be taking wildlife and dogs with the tele. So, there would be movement. And I don't want to use a tripod.

Thanks again.

[Helen]

In all seriousness the 28-135mm is a good lens for the money    I think you'll really enjoy it BUT I do get frustrated at the lack of zoom with it   

[chickrockguitar]

Yeah, I do know what you mean. But, I as long as I have a decent tele lens I dont mind.
livercake, your pics are very cool.

[Helen]

Yeah, I do know what you mean. But, I as long as I have a decent tele lens I dont mind.
livercake, your pics are very cool.

thank you!    looking forward to seeing yours of Marlee (I've missed that gorgeous little man  )

[JaspersMum]

I like my basic EF 75 - 300mm but get sooo frustrated with the shots if the suns not out 

It takes some decent shots in bright conditions but sadly this is England and more often than not, it's overcast..

[chickrockguitar]

but sadly this is England and more often than not, it's overcast..

LMAO!!  

I also forgot to ask, regading the tele lens...

I have the canon 55-250... would the 70-300 be that much of a bigger step up? As in, in terms of buying a new lens (I'd sell the other one), is it worth the money? Would I get much more Zoom out of that lens?

[Nicola]

There's not going to be a really massive zoom difference between your current lens and the 70-300mm but once you get past that level of zoom you're looking at a big jump in price and you would also in all likelihood need to use a tripod. Zoom wise I find my 70-200mm adequate for pretty much everything now so a zoom of 250 or 300mm should be fine for dog photography. A superzoom is good if you're taking wildlife photos from a hide or something so you really can't get too close but for dogs 250mm+ should more than cover you.

I have an old 75-300mm USM which I never really use any more but I got some good action shots with it. I have no experience of the 55-250mm so can't compare them but the 75-300mm is a decent lens, these were all taken with my old one -







You're probably looking at the newer 70-300mm version though, it's a fair whack more expensive but it's a much newer version, it has IS, it's lighter and has faster autofocus.

[hollyd443]

Doh! I'm useless, totally forgot to PM you back. The lense I use on mine is a 55-200mm (ignore my guess on the old PM). I'm not sure its what I'm suppose to use, my brother gave it to me as a hand me down!

[chickrockguitar]

Okay, thanks for the help everyone.
I shall be ordering the 28-135mm this week, and for now, I will be sticking with my 55-250.