I'm thinking of upgrading my camera to a Canon 5D MIII. It would not support EF-S lenses and I absolutely love my EF-S 18-200mm F3.5-5.6 IS lens. Is there anything equivalent in the EF range? Using it for landscape shots and an all in one for travelling. Not sure about budget yet. Just want to see my options. Thanks!
The Canon EF 24-105mm is a very good general-purpuse lens - the 24mm end is definitely wide enough for amazing landscapes, and the 105mm gives decent zoom.
Hi Marie! I've got the EF 24-105. I've only had it since January and wanted it for my Europe trip in March. I saw a huge improvement in image quality when I started using it, even on the 60D before I got my 5D MII. L glass is definitely the way to go. Its a fantastic all purpose lens, although I am considering upgrading to the 24-70 2.8...
It's a nice lens, and surprisingly rare (as in, I've only ever seen one actually being used!), although that may be due to it being considered quite heavy.
I'm not aware of anything else currently manufactured with quite such a flexible focal range for Canon full-frame cameras, so otherwise you'd be looking at combining a more reasonable length walkabout lens (24-70 or 24-105mm) with a 70-200mm or 70-300mm lens, for a two-lens system.
The two I'd particularly recommend are the Canon 24-105mm f/4L and the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. However, by the time you add the weight of the Canon 70-300mm L (1050g) and the Canon 24-105mm L (670g), you are carrying around 1720g of lenses, whereas the Canon 28-300mm L gets the whole job done (except the 24-28mm range) with a weight of 1670g.
Thanks Teresa and Aleksandra. I'll look into the EF 24-105mm.
Alexis, the 28-300mm was actually my first choice until I found out about the weight. If I'm going on a holiday trip, I don't think my neck can take the beating by lugging that around all day :D
Thank you for your input guys. Anyone else has any recommendations? Much appreciated.
Is it an option to buy a super-zoom lens just for travel photography?
There are tons of lenses in this focal range from back when film SLRs were still popular -- then you had the same 'sensor' size for a complete amateur as a high-end professional, so cheap, light, full-frame superzooms were very common.
The image quality will be rather grim, but if it's just a travel lens, you might be able to live with it? In the right hands they should all be capable of stunning photos -- you just might need to work a little harder than with a nice new L lens.
I imagine you could pick up any of these on eBay for a couple of hundred bucks if you shop around:
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (490g!)
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC (same as IS) (550g)
Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (690g)
Tokina 28-300mm f/4-6.3 (unknown weight, but in the ballpark).
I think these have all long since been discontinued new, but there'll be loads on the second-hand market. The Tamron is probably the best of the bunch due to having IS...
I want it to be an everyday lens as well as for travel photography. Just like my beloved 18-200mm. I think you might have hit the spot with the Tamron but do you have any experience with it? Any good with image quality? Actually the Canon EF 24-105mm sounds great too but I'm just wondering how would it affect the range if I'm going from 200mm down to 105mm.
@marieooi You really can't compare any of the L range of lenses with that Tamron, the Canon L's will be much sharper wide open, much faster to focus, much quieter, better image stabilisation, colour, contrast, etc.
If it's going to be an everyday lens, I would stick with the 24-105mm L, putting the Tamron on a 5D Mark III as your primary lens will be a big waste of the 5D. If it was a lens you would only use where lightness and flexibility was absolutely key, like when travelling, the trade-off might be worth it, but not all the time.
@marieooi I used to have the 28-135mm, I hated it, but that was mainly because it was on a crop-frame camera and 28mm isn't wide enough on a crop-frame.
It's a fairly decent low-end lens, but I really suspect that if you took a shot at 135mm with it, and took a shot at 105mm with the 24-105mm L lens, and then cropped the edges off the 105mm shot to make it match the 135mm shot, the 105mm shot would still be sharper.
(In other words, a soft 135mm lens will resolve less than a sharp 105mm lens).
The 28-200mm doesn't have IS, which is a bit of a deal-breaker for travel photography in my eye. Like the Tamron and Sigma options, it might be worth considering for occasional use, but it would be a really bad lens to put in front of a 5D3 every day.
Sorry, I'm not helping much. Cheap/light lenses are fine for occasional use, but if you're going to use the lens every day, it needs to be a Canon L lens, or equivalently high-end model from another manufacturer -- otherwise you're just throwing away $3500 on the camera. That means you either need to accept a significant loss in reach, and go with the 24-105mm L, or accept a significant increase in weight, and go for the 28-300mm L.
If neither of those are options, have you considered upgrading to a top-of-the-range crop-frame camera, like the new 70D? Full-frame is nice, but you need to pair it with decent, expensive, and all-too-frequently heavy lenses.
Great camera just love the results after my 7D. I have gone for the pro lenses and am more than happy with the results over the whole range. Check out my albums for a quicl look.
Swapping to a full frame camera (EOS 1D-X) from my cruddy 7D was the best move I have ever made. It really makes a difference to the image quality that I get out of my L glass lenses. Now I walk around with a 17-40mm L on the body most of the time and the trusty 24-105mm L is there in he bag for the longer shots. Nothing but nothing is going to part me from my 50mm f/1.4 though even though it isn't L glass though.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-300mm-f-3.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
It's a nice lens, and surprisingly rare (as in, I've only ever seen one actually being used!), although that may be due to it being considered quite heavy.
I'm not aware of anything else currently manufactured with quite such a flexible focal range for Canon full-frame cameras, so otherwise you'd be looking at combining a more reasonable length walkabout lens (24-70 or 24-105mm) with a 70-200mm or 70-300mm lens, for a two-lens system.
The two I'd particularly recommend are the Canon 24-105mm f/4L and the Canon 70-300mm f/4-5.6L. However, by the time you add the weight of the Canon 70-300mm L (1050g) and the Canon 24-105mm L (670g), you are carrying around 1720g of lenses, whereas the Canon 28-300mm L gets the whole job done (except the 24-28mm range) with a weight of 1670g.
Alexis, the 28-300mm was actually my first choice until I found out about the weight. If I'm going on a holiday trip, I don't think my neck can take the beating by lugging that around all day :D
Thank you for your input guys. Anyone else has any recommendations? Much appreciated.
There are tons of lenses in this focal range from back when film SLRs were still popular -- then you had the same 'sensor' size for a complete amateur as a high-end professional, so cheap, light, full-frame superzooms were very common.
The image quality will be rather grim, but if it's just a travel lens, you might be able to live with it? In the right hands they should all be capable of stunning photos -- you just might need to work a little harder than with a nice new L lens.
I imagine you could pick up any of these on eBay for a couple of hundred bucks if you shop around:
Sigma 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 (490g!)
Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 VC (same as IS) (550g)
Tokina 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 (690g)
Tokina 28-300mm f/4-6.3 (unknown weight, but in the ballpark).
I think these have all long since been discontinued new, but there'll be loads on the second-hand market. The Tamron is probably the best of the bunch due to having IS...
I want it to be an everyday lens as well as for travel photography. Just like my beloved 18-200mm. I think you might have hit the spot with the Tamron but do you have any experience with it? Any good with image quality? Actually the Canon EF 24-105mm sounds great too but I'm just wondering how would it affect the range if I'm going from 200mm down to 105mm.
If it's going to be an everyday lens, I would stick with the 24-105mm L, putting the Tamron on a 5D Mark III as your primary lens will be a big waste of the 5D. If it was a lens you would only use where lightness and flexibility was absolutely key, like when travelling, the trade-off might be worth it, but not all the time.
Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM
It's a fairly decent low-end lens, but I really suspect that if you took a shot at 135mm with it, and took a shot at 105mm with the 24-105mm L lens, and then cropped the edges off the 105mm shot to make it match the 135mm shot, the 105mm shot would still be sharper.
(In other words, a soft 135mm lens will resolve less than a sharp 105mm lens).
The 28-200mm doesn't have IS, which is a bit of a deal-breaker for travel photography in my eye. Like the Tamron and Sigma options, it might be worth considering for occasional use, but it would be a really bad lens to put in front of a 5D3 every day.
Sorry, I'm not helping much. Cheap/light lenses are fine for occasional use, but if you're going to use the lens every day, it needs to be a Canon L lens, or equivalently high-end model from another manufacturer -- otherwise you're just throwing away $3500 on the camera. That means you either need to accept a significant loss in reach, and go with the 24-105mm L, or accept a significant increase in weight, and go for the 28-300mm L.
If neither of those are options, have you considered upgrading to a top-of-the-range crop-frame camera, like the new 70D? Full-frame is nice, but you need to pair it with decent, expensive, and all-too-frequently heavy lenses.