I Want A Good Lens To Replace The Canon EF 18-55.

Homesdale 17 123
11 Mar 2005 4:09AM
Can anyone recommend a good lens to replace the above. Just bought a Canon 20D body to replace my 300d, which came with the 18-55 lens.

Now to boost the quality of my photos and to make full use of the camera, i know i need to upgrade the lens.

Was thinking about the 28-135 IS USM. Would this be a good upgrade or is there something better out there?
sabretalon 17 1.9k United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 4:16AM
The 28-135 IS, is a good lens and is on my camera most of the time.

Maybe you should let us know a little bit more?

What do you intend to be photographing?

Potential budget?

Homesdale 17 123
11 Mar 2005 4:20AM
I intend to use it for a bit of everything really. It will mostly be left on the camera for the usual daily stuff, like pictures of the kids in the park, holiday. Things like that.

I really don't know the budget i want to spend. Just want a better lens than the 18-55, to compliment the 20D.
11 Mar 2005 4:21AM
17-85 EFS, image stabiliser.

absolutely loving it. a good wide angle and a decent zoom potential. very crisp.

with image stabilising i can hand hold pretty slow shutter speeds.
sabretalon 17 1.9k United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 4:27AM
Does the 18-55 provide the right sort of range you want or do you find you need more?

If you want more the 28-135 is a good option, but I would suggest you try one out first or at least make sure you can send it back as you can get some that are of a poor quality.

If your not using the 18-55 at the 18 but more towards the 55 end then look at the 28-135. If you are using it more towards the 18 end then look at the 17-85 instead.
Homesdale 17 123
11 Mar 2005 4:34AM
Didn't know there was a 17-85. That sounds more like it really.
tepot 17 4.4k United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 4:50AM
for a general purpose lens you might want to consider a 24-70mm, i've seen excellent results from Sigma lenses in the gallery's and they're cheaper than canon.
philwig 16 817 1
11 Mar 2005 6:01AM
The Canon 28-135 is about as good as you'll get for non "L" glass. An excellent all round lens. With a partial-frame camera you may not see its limitations either.

The Canon 24-70L is in a different class, but costs twice as much and weighs a lot. f/2.8 throughout but doesn't have IS.
tepot 17 4.4k United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 6:08AM
you won't need a fast lens unless you want to capture daylight action, sports etc, so an F3.5/4.5 would be ok and a lot cheaper too.
Homesdale 17 123
11 Mar 2005 6:54AM
What is, "L" glass?
Carabosse 18 41.8k 270 England
11 Mar 2005 6:58AM
You pay an "L" of a price for it! Grin

The 24-70L costs about 900. An awful lot for a not-quite-3x, not particlarly fast and non-IS zoom!!

But some people on here will go into ecstasies about it!! Wink
strawman 18 22.2k 16 United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 6:59AM
Glass that Is "L" of expensive.

It is the top notch pro level glass produced by Canon. To be honest if you wish to produce better photo's with your 20D than the 300D managed you need to seriously upgrade the lenses you are using.


You beat me to it CB
u08mcb 17 5.8k
11 Mar 2005 7:01AM
No different to the raptures you go into over your kit CB.

I've been looking at a few standard zooms to replace my old one, the Tamron 28-75 seems to be pretty well thought of, less good feeling for the Tokina 28-70 and Sigma 24-70. Anybody have opinions on these?
sabretalon 17 1.9k United Kingdom
11 Mar 2005 7:03AM
glass is what most here refer to as a lens or a least the glass in them. L is for the L series lenses by Canon.

The end result being, the lenses cost an arm and a leg and are considered to be professional quality lenses. Unlike the beer bottle glass in the 18-55.
Homesdale 17 123
11 Mar 2005 7:05AM
Thanks for all your comments, but what lens should i go for?

The 28-136 @ 327 or the 17-85 @ 425.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.