romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

If he has a 28mm and it is not wide enough, buying an expensive Canon 24mm Zoom really won't help, will it?

amehta Loc: Boston

I'm not sure I agree for an APS-C camera, where it becomes a normal to medium telephoto lens, completely skipping the wide-angle range.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

My first take on this was a "mid range zoom" as the title suggests - but seems to be leaning more to a wide/normal/short tele zoom where the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 becomes viable ?? I will also say that the FF Tamron SP 20-40 f2.7-3.5 aspherical is also a great lens - again - if you can find one

oldtool2 Loc: South Jersey

:thumbup: An excellent point about Canon lenses holding their value.

Canon does sale all their lenses as refurbished but you need to constantly watch their site! They may not have many of a lens they post and they do go very quickly!

Jim D

lukan Loc: Chicago, IL

I agree, but I think the 60D will be the next thing to be sold, and then it'll be on to full-frame... so I'm putting the cart before the horse.

I read the OP to state, "... fast lens to replace the 28-135 f3.5-5.6...". He also has a Tamron 10-24, for ultra wide angle. There is some redundancy in the focal length array, so I would either sell the 28-135 and get the outstanding 24-70 f2.8L II; or sell the 60D AND the 28-135 and get the 6D and the 24-70 f2.8L II.
Another option would be to sell the 10-24 and the 28-135 and get the excellent 16-35 f2.8L II. Then when the OP eventually upgrades to full-frame, all he needs is the excellent and affordable 50 f1.4. (GAS alert!). :mrgreen: :thumbup:

And yes, the Canon lenses are worth it, but the Sigma ART series is excellent as well.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM might be your best bet if you need a fast, mid-range zoom. There are third party alternatives, but the Canon lens is very hard to beat! It's got great image quality, fast accurate focus, and stabilization too.

If you'd like a little wider and don't need f2.8, the EF-S 15-85mm IS USM is an excellent alternative. Top image quality and reasonable size, plus a really nice range of focal lengths, wider than most "standard" zooms. It's got a variable aperture, though (f3.5-5.6).

But, really, the Canon EF 28-135 IS USM is a very capable lens optically and in all performance factors... It's also nice that it is easily found lightly used for around $200, because so many have been sold in kit with various Canon camera models. It's just not as well built or well sealed for dust and moisture resistance as some of the L-series lenses. If you want one of those, you'll need to spend considerably more money and still will not get a particularly wide a lens because all L-series are, by definition, usable on all EOS cameras past, present and future. That means all L-series are full frame compatible. The EF 24-70/2.8L Mark II USM is the best of the bunch, but as you've noted it's quite expensive.

Alternatives are the original EF 24-70/2.8L USM (bought used, it's now discontinued), the EF 24-70/4L IS USM, or the EF 24-105/4L IS USM. Frankly, none of these will give you noticeably better image quality than the 28-135 you already have (which, yes, was a favorite of Monte Zucker and remains a top choice of some other pros such as Shutterbug contributing editor Joe Farace). There's very little difference in terms of IQ, but any of the L-series would be more durable, better sealed.... and of course, heavier and more expensive.

Personally I use a 24-70/2.8 (original or "Mark I" version) and two 28-135s.

Because you already have a wider lens (tho I've never heard of a [b]Sigma 10-24mm?), I don't see why you really need a wider standard zoom. Can't you just swap out lenses?

If you want a wider standard zoom, the most practical thing is to go to a crop-only lens (EF-S in Canon parlance, instead of EF), such as the EF-S 17-55 or 15-85 mentioned above. The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 is another crop only lens that generally competes with the Canon 17-55mm... The Canon sells for nearly $900 while the Siggy is around $800. The Siggy is 1.3 stops faster, but is a bit larger and heavier, even though it is 1 mm less wide at the wide end and 20mm shorter on the tele end of the zoom range.

But, let's clarify... Which ultrawide do you have (since there's no such thing as a Sigma 10-24mm)? Maybe what you need is a different ultrawide.

Tamron makes a 10-24mm. It 's one of the most affordable ultrawide (UWA) options.

Sigma does make two versions of [b]10-20mm. Their cheapest UWA is a 10-20mm with a variable aperture. They also offer a considerably more expensive (and much larger/heavier) 10-20mm with non-variable f3.5 aperture.

Sigma also makes a 12-24mm that's actually a full frame capable lens, but is quite expensive, especially if you only plan to use it on a crop camera. This is the widest of the wide, for full frame cameras, but has some pretty strong distortions.

And, Sigma makes an 8-16mm, a crop only lens, and the widest of the wide (short of going to a fisheye) for crop cameras. Note that this lens has a protruding front element, so can't be fitted with standard filters.

Tokina makes 11-16/2.8... the only f2.8 lens in the ultrawide for crop-camera category. It's a very sharp lens, rivaling the Canon 10-22mm, but a bit prone to flare... plus to get f2.8 you give up much of the focal length range of the zoom.

Tokina also makes a 12-28mm. This is a new lens that replaces their 12-24mm model. Both are crop only models. I haven't used the new lens, but the older one is quite good (and sometimes can still be found new at bargain, blowout prices). It's a very little less sharp than the Toki 11-16 or Canon 10-22, but has resistance to flare very close to that of the Canon (which is the best of the UWA bunch in this respect).

All these Tokina are non-variable aperture, and all are "L-like" in construction. I think they all use micro motor focus drive (the Canon 10-22mm uses arguably better USM), but this really doesn't seem to effect focus performance much, since UWA lenses just don't need to move their focus group very much to achieve focus.

Canon's own EF-S 10-22mm is a superb ultrawide... Well corrected, sharp edge to edge, probably the most flare resistant in the category, reasonably well built with top notch USM focus drive.

Personally I use the Tokina 12-24mm and Canon EF-S 10-22mm.

In summary...

- A combination of 28-135 (or 24-70, 24-105, etc.) with 12-24 or 10-22mm works quite well. Bit of overlap with a 70-200, but that's usually not a problem (and the 28-135mm is a little soft all the way out at 135mm anyway).

- A 15-85mm might make a separate, ultrawide lens unnecessary for some folks. Dovetails nicely with a 70-200mm.

- A 17-55 or 18-35 also might be wide enough for some folks... or might pair up nicely with a somewhat specialized ultrawides such as 11-16/2.8 or 8-16mm. I wouldn't worry about the "gap" between a 17-55 and a 70-200... but the one between 18-35 and 70-200 omits some important focal lengths, IMO.

Have fun shopping!

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

Wow, there has been a great response to my post. Thank you everyone. First let me clear up some confusion. I stated in my post that I have a Tamron 10-24 not a Sigma. Someone else said Sigma and it was picked up by others.

Secondly I obtained a Canon 24-105 f/4L today from a friend and did some test shots comparing it at various focal lengths and apertures with the 28-135 and it was much sharper primarily at the edges and wider apertures. So to some degree everybody is right. So I conclude that the 24-105L is a better lens but not necessarily enough to warrant a change.


Now a 17-50 or 55 f2.8 is another option that removes the overlap with the better 70-200 f4L. So that is what I will explore further. Thanks again for all the good advice and info.

Zone-System-Grandpa Loc: Springfield, Ohio

If you go to Canon's website, you wlll find several zoom lenses in the range that you are seeking, notably, the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Refurbished. I just looked at it !

~Doug~

philz Loc: Rockaway Township NJ

Shooting test completed. Conclusion is that the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 compares very well in sharpness in the middle with the 24-105mm f/4L and the 70-200mm f/4L (all Canon) at all comparable focal lengths (28mm, 50mm, 70mm, 100mm, and 135mm) and apertures except for 28mm. And even at 28mm it was sharper than the Tamron SP 10-24mm at 24mm. Therefore, I do not need to replace it with a 24-105mm f/4 L as contemplated as this lens essentially duplicates the range. I still am looking to add a 17-50 or 55 f/2.8 or a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4 for general purpose shooting that covers wider needs when more length is not needed.

Thanks everybody for their input and especially amfoto1 and camerapapi for suggesting I stick with the 28-135mm due to its good quality performance.