What to buy....what to buy

[jonhoglund]

I'm getting my tax return and I want to buy a new lens, currently I have an XSI and the kit lens. I'm looking to spend up to 400 and am thinking about a tele/zoom....these two are my top two choices, but i don't know if the extra money for the one is worth it or if i should be getting something else all together... PLEASE HELP!!!!! Thanks in advance

Amazon.com: Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Amazon.com: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

[BCampbell]

The Digital picture has great reviews of both the 28-135 and the 55-250. They'll tell you jsut about everyone you'll want to know.

Personally, I think these are two good value lenses; it's hard to get all of the features they have, especially IS, for under $500. But there are compromises, they don't have the best optical quality, and the 55-250 in particular is not very sharp, which cancels out some of the benefit of the long end of the focal length. The 55-250 is also an EF-S lens which I have a hard time recommending to anyone just in case you choose to move up to full-frame in the future. I wouldn't expect that lens to hold high resale value.

The 28-135, by contrast, duplicates some of the range of your kit lens, and doesn't go quite as long. You might find that you want to zoom in just a bit more than 135 lets you. It can substitute well as a general use lens, but you might miss the 18-28mm range and find yourself wanting to switch lenses often. Of the two I would go with this one for value for your dollar, but honestly I don't think either are particulalry good choices.

If you want a tele zoom on a budget, I would really suggest saving a little more and getting the 70-200 f/4L for around $600-$700. You lose IS, but the difference between L glass and the two lenses you're looking at is huge. This is a lens you'll keep and use for a long, long time.

If you're absolutely locked into a $400 price ceiling, a few other lenses I'd look at are the Canon 50mm f/1.4 ($350), Canon 28mm f/2.8 ($250), Canon 35mm f/2.0 ($300), Canon 24mm f/2.8 ($350), and Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($400).

[SoxAddict]

Don't forget other brands also - Sigma, just to mention one of them, has a lot of excellent lenses, & you might get a better quality lens for your $400 budget if you don't feel like waiting longer to save for a Canon lens per se.

[jonhoglund]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

The Digital picture has great reviews of both the 28-135 and the 55-250. They'll tell you jsut about everyone you'll want to know.

Personally, I think these are two good value lenses; it's hard to get all of the features they have, especially IS, for under $500. But there are compromises, they don't have the best optical quality, and the 55-250 in particular is not very sharp, which cancels out some of the benefit of the long end of the focal length. The 55-250 is also an EF-S lens which I have a hard time recommending to anyone just in case you choose to move up to full-frame in the future. I wouldn't expect that lens to hold high resale value.

The 28-135, by contrast, duplicates some of the range of your kit lens, and doesn't go quite as long. You might find that you want to zoom in just a bit more than 135 lets you. It can substitute well as a general use lens, but you might miss the 18-28mm range and find yourself wanting to switch lenses often. Of the two I would go with this one for value for your dollar, but honestly I don't think either are particulalry good choices.

If you want a tele zoom on a budget, I would really suggest saving a little more and getting the 70-200 f/4L for around $600-$700. You lose IS, but the difference between L glass and the two lenses you're looking at is huge. This is a lens you'll keep and use for a long, long time.

If you're absolutely locked into a $400 price ceiling, a few other lenses I'd look at are the Canon 50mm f/1.4 ($350), Canon 28mm f/2.8 ($250), Canon 35mm f/2.0 ($300), Canon 24mm f/2.8 ($350), and Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($400).

Thanks for the responses!
BCampbell, Is this what you are talking about? It is more, and maybe i'll just have to wait a bit longer to get it....but the reason i was looking at the more expensive of my examples was also the lower f#, won't i be losing some speed with this one? Was wanting something versitile in low light as well.?

[BCampbell]

I'm guessing you meant to include a link there but I don't see it. Anyway, if you're comparing the 70-200 f/4L to either of the two you listed, the 70-200 will actually tend to be as fast or faster. It's a constant aperture zoom, so that means that nomatter your focal length your widest aperture is f/4. The 55-250 is f/4 at its widest and then closes down to 5.6 at 154mm through full extension to 250. The 28-135 is a little wider at 28mm (f/3.5, a fraction of a stop faster), but by 28mm f/4 is the maximum, and it hits f/5.6 at 85mm.

So, basically, the 70-200 f/4 is as fast or faster than both of those lenses through all of the focal ranges they share. And again I can't overstate the performance of L glass. preferably you'd get one of the f/2.8 models but they're well out of your price range. The 70-200 f/4L is simply one of the bets Canon lenses you can get for under $1000. If you're looking for a medium zoom telephoto on a budget, I'd seriously consider it -- maybe see if someone has one they'd let you borrow for a day.

You simply won't find a tele zoom that also works well in low light in your price range. You'll want to budget probably closer to $1500 for that. It's just really asking a lot.

[jonhoglund]

Originally Posted by BCampbell

I'm guessing you meant to include a link there but I don't see it. Anyway, if you're comparing the 70-200 f/4L to either of the two you listed, the 70-200 will actually tend to be as fast or faster. It's a constant aperture zoom, so that means that nomatter your focal length your widest aperture is f/4. The 55-250 is f/4 at its widest and then closes down to 5.6 at 154mm through full extension to 250. The 28-135 is a little wider at 28mm (f/3.5, a fraction of a stop faster), but by 28mm f/4 is the maximum, and it hits f/5.6 at 85mm.

So, basically, the 70-200 f/4 is as fast or faster than both of those lenses through all of the focal ranges they share. And again I can't overstate the performance of L glass. preferably you'd get one of the f/2.8 models but they're well out of your price range. The 70-200 f/4L is simply one of the bets Canon lenses you can get for under $1000. If you're looking for a medium zoom telephoto on a budget, I'd seriously consider it -- maybe see if someone has one they'd let you borrow for a day.

You simply won't find a tele zoom that also works well in low light in your price range. You'll want to budget probably closer to $1500 for that. It's just really asking a lot.

Again, BCampbell THANKS!! I see what you are talking about. Any words of wisdom for protection plans? Canon | EF 70-200mm f/4L USM Lens | 2578A002 | B&H Photo Video
BH offers some and a good price, anyone ever buy into one of these and have to use?

[BCampbell]

I'm usually wary of protection plans -- doesn't mean they're always bad. You have to consider the odds you will need something repaired and the cost to do so vs. the cost of the plan. Canon warranties their lenses for one year, and often repairs outside of that are surprisingly inexpensive. I don't know that you'd spend $70 on repairs in the two years that you wouldn't be covered under Canon. It's a gamble, really.

One final note on the 70-200 f/4L; in the event you do upgrade to a faster model, it will hold fairly high resale; I'd say you can recoup 70-90% of the purchase price. With the other lenses, you'd probably be lucky to get 50-60% of your money back.