Canon 40D "kit" with EF 28-135 f/3.5 -5.6 USM lens?

Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California) and
am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate so
good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
definitely time to trade up.

Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type) or
of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on the
aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second lens
based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus the
occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

/G7

On Dec 11, 12:40 pm, "Gary Seven" wrote:
Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California) and
am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate so
good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
definitely time to trade up.

Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type) or
of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on the
aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second lens
based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus the
occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

/G7

It's a nice lens, but I replaced it with the 17-85 EF-S to get the
wider angle. My son continues to enjoy the 28-135. I'd suggest you
decide if the wide end or the tele end is more important for your
needs. Neither is great for what I consider low light; both do OK
with close-ups.

Paul B.

Gary Seven wrote:
[...]
consensus is on the aforementioned lens, [...] I would
like something that could give good results in low light situations
(daybreak, sunset in the vineyard)

f3.5 is not exactly a low-light lens. It is a standard kit lens apperture,
optimized/compromized for convenience and broad range
vacation/holiday/family photography.
Actually they are so slow that manufactures don't recommend using
tele-converters on them because the resulting apperture may not be large
enough for the auto-focus to work properly.

If you want a true low-light lens then you should look into the lower f2.x
or even better f1.x range. Of course those true low-light performers are
mostly prime (= fixed focal length) lenses and with a few notable exception
quite pricy.

jue

On Dec 11, 12:40 pm, "Gary Seven" wrote:

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

The 28-135 IS is a great all-purpose lens. It is the lens I recommend
if you just want one lens. If low-light shooting is important you
might augment it with a 50 f/1.8 which is a very good lens for less
than $100. If a wider angle is more to your liking, I'd go with the
17-40 f/4L, which is an excellent lens but a bit more pricey.

"Gary Seven" wrote in message
...
Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California) and
am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate so
good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
definitely time to trade up.

Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type) or
of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on the
aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second
lens
based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus
the
occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

/G7


The 28-135 is an "ok" lens. The 17-85 varies from nasty to complete junk.
If you're doing low light shots of static objects just use a tripod. I've
owned the 17-85 and sold it, used another 17-85 and it was even worse then
the first one! (shots available on request) The corner sharpness is
non-existent at 17mm. FM-reviews is a great place to read up on these
lenses.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

My advice is to take all the reviews with a grain of salt since anyone can
post. Someone new to photography might say a lens is great, and someone
who's been around a while might want to throw it at the pavement ;-)

A good lens on a budget is the 28-105
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2
this one, not the 4.5 version

"J?rgen Exner" wrote:
Gary Seven wrote:
[...]
consensus is on the aforementioned lens, [...] I would
like something that could give good results in low light situations
(daybreak, sunset in the vineyard)

f3.5 is not exactly a low-light lens. It is a standard kit lens apperture,
optimized/compromized for convenience and broad range
vacation/holiday/family photography.
Actually they are so slow that manufactures don't recommend using
tele-converters on them because the resulting apperture may not be large
enough for the auto-focus to work properly.

If you want a true low-light lens then you should look into the lower f2.x
or even better f1.x range. Of course those true low-light performers are
mostly prime (= fixed focal length) lenses and with a few notable exception
quite pricy.

On the other hand, while admitting that I've never used the 40D,
I've read much (here) about its ability to use higher ISO settings.
In that case ISO 200 or ISO 400 would make up the missing stop
or two without any trouble.

I do this with my 300D and am quite happy with the results.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

"Dirty Harry" a écrit dans le message de
news:lMD7j.1180$ox1.167@pd7urf3no...

"Gary Seven" wrote in message
...
Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California)
and
am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate
so
good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
definitely time to trade up.

Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type)
or
of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on
the
aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second
lens
based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus
the
occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

/G7


The 28-135 is an "ok" lens. The 17-85 varies from nasty to complete junk.
If you're doing low light shots of static objects just use a tripod. I've
owned the 17-85 and sold it, used another 17-85 and it was even worse then
the first one! (shots available on request) The corner sharpness is
non-existent at 17mm. FM-reviews is a great place to read up on these
lenses.


http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

My advice is to take all the reviews with a grain of salt since anyone can
post. Someone new to photography might say a lens is great, and someone
who's been around a while might want to throw it at the pavement ;-)

A good lens on a budget is the 28-105

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2
this one, not the 4.5 version


As others have said, decide if you like wider or longer shots. For wider,
you can't go wrong with the 17-40 f4 L and for longer (and all around lens),
the 24-105 f4 L IS is great. Don't worry about low light, the 40D works
well at 1600 and 3200 ISO.

Jean

On Dec 11, 5:00 pm, "Dirty Harry" wrote:

My advice is to take all the reviews with a grain of salt since anyone can
post. Someone new to photography might say a lens is great, and someone
who's been around a while might want to throw it at the pavement ;-)


Or listen to those of us who have taken thousands of shots with the
lenses we recommend.

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:39:15 -0600, TRoss wrote:

On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:40:17 +0100, "Gary Seven"
wrote:

Hello all. I am getting ready to visit family in the USA (California) and
am thinking seriously of buying the Canon 40D. With the exchange rate so
good (at least, in my favor...the Euro is about 1.48 dollars), it's
definitely time to trade up.

Most of my shooting is done either in my vineyards (ie, landscape type) or
of my two children. I was wondering what the overall consensus is on the
aforementioned lens, and whether it would be worthwhile to buy a second lens
based on the shooting I do. I would like something that could give good
results in low light situations (daybreak, sunset in the vineyard) plus the
occasional close up shots of vines at various times of the year.

Anyone care to put in their two cents? Thanks in advance.

/G7

I have been very pleased with this lens. This has been my walk-around
lens for over three years, and there is very little I dislike about
it. I think it's nice lens for the price.

My only complaint is 28mm isn't wide enough for me on a camera with a
1.6x crop factor. If it had been available at the time I probably
would have gotten the EF-S 17-85.

I also wish it were faster - it really isn't a low-light lens. The IS
does help, but you'll still need some sort of support for daybreak and
sunset shots.

If the budget allows for it and you can live with a lens with less
reach, take a look at the 16-35 f/2.8L and the 24-70mm f/2.8L.

Consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, designed to be the normal range zoom
for 1.6x crop factor cameras. Very sharp lens.

It is like having a 42-137mm lens on a medium format camera like a
Hasselblad. And if you are more used to 35mm, you can compare it to
27-88mm on a 35mm.

The 28-135mm is designed for the 35mm format, not for the AP-C format.
Might be okay if you like tele lenses but not if you need or like wide
angle. Photo beginners want the power of tele, pros are inclined much
more toward the excitement of wide.

Ed

EAL wrote:

The 28-135mm is designed for the 35mm format, not for the AP-C format.
Might be okay if you like tele lenses but not if you need or like wide
angle. Photo beginners want the power of tele, pros are inclined much
more toward the excitement of wide.

Now there's a blanket statement to which I take exception. I don't find
either big glass nor wide angles exciting in and of themselves. In the
right circumstances, either can be, ah, gratifying.

--
John McWilliams