Advice on an EF lens for my Rebel 2000

[mrwizard45]

After doing research, I'm overwhelmed by all the EF lenses Canon has put out. I'm looking for something in the 24-135mm range. My main concern is image quality. I want something with a better range and better quality than the original included 35-85 lens.

Also, I don't mind buying used and an old model. I don't want to spend more than 250 dollars.

Thanks!

 

[LowriderS10]

That's going to be a tough one...

Generally with that zoom range quality and speed will cost you...also, you won't be able to use many of the cheaper EF-S lenses since they're designed for crop bodies, not full frame...

The problem is that since all current Canon DSLRs use EF mounts, the prices on EF lenses haven't dropped, even if they're older, since they can be used on anything made in the past 25 or so years.

If I were you, I'd look into some third party (Sigma, Tamron mostly) lenses...maybe you can pick up a cheap 18-200 Tamron or something...again, it won't be fast and you won't get L quality images and you'll likely be unable to use the wide end...but that's all I can think of that would fit in your budget...

 

[Brad Bireley]

Here's the lens.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have this lens & it's wonderful!

 

[LowriderS10]

Here's the lens.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I have this lens & it's wonderful!

wow that's a good price...I'd say we have a winner...

 

[mrwizard45]

Yeah, I noticed that lens, but isn't a focusing distance of 20" a bit far?

How much telephoto length do I have to sacrifice to get a super sharp, quality lens, suggestions? I could live with a 24-90

 

[maderik]

Super sharp, zoom, and under $250 probably doesn't exist. Canon's better zooms in your price range (used) are the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM, and the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 USM IS. Opinions are mixed as to which is better, possibly due to copy variation and how to weight the differences in sharpness/flare/CA. The MFD's are all about the same as well (you want super sharp, zoom AND near macro? Don't keep moving the goal posts or nothing will match.)

 

[Paul Green]

If your main concern is image quality and your budget is $250 why not get yourself a prime and use your feet more?

 

[Mark Fisher]

If your main concern is image quality and your budget is $250 why not get yourself a prime and use your feet more?

That was what I was going to suggest with a twist.....for $250 you can get a both a 50mm f1.8 mark II lens (which everyone should have given the price) and a used 28-105 lens. The optical quality of the 50 is excellent. The zoom is better than the kit lens and really decent at the middle apertures (similar to the 28-135 mentioned earlier). I own the 50 and have owned the 28-105. The build quality of both of them are good for the price range, but really not all that great. Zoom range trades off with quality and lens speed for a given price.....there is really no getting around that.

If you want great build quality, you are either looking at the pro lenses or go to a manually focussed classic slr like the Canons, Nikons, Olympus' (Olympi?). Just taking a quick look at KEH, you could build a nice kit of an Olympus OM2 with 50mm 1.8, a bgn 28mm f2.8 and a 135mm lens for just about $250. I suspect you could build the same kit with any of the manufacturers. If you can live without a zoom and autofocus, this might be a good alternative. This kit is less convenient, but has better image quality and build quality as compared the Rebel zoom kit.

 

[mrwizard45]

Thanks to everybody for their advice.

I really like the idea of getting the 50mm 1.8 plus that 28-105. A friend of mine has that 50mm on his Canon digital it really is quite nice for the money.

What are the main differences between the 28-105 and the 28-135? Besides focal length and size? There are a few around here for under 250 used...

If I wanted a tele zoom in the future are there any I should look out for?

 

[daveandiputra]

for affordable tele zooms, people said the EF 100-300mm have better image quality than the EF 75-300mm (which if you want IS on a affordable package is the only way to go). of course this means leaving out the L zooms, which even at the cheapest will exceed the price of those lenses.

 

[maderik]

What are the main differences between the 28-105 and the 28-135? Besides focal length and size?

The 28-105 focuses a tiny bit faster, is 1/2 stop faster at 105mm, and uses 58mm filters. The 28-135 has Image Stabilization if you like to shoot handheld at marginal shutter speeds and uses 67mm filters.