Well, B&H has a Canon EF 28-135 listed here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?sku=149629&Q=&O=&m=Y&gclid=CjwKEAiAhaqzBRDNltaS0pW5mWgSJADd7cYDzulm-tcjWw8VueHE_79Fo2k4yluympj_0t82UAMCkxoCOazw_wcB&is=USA&ap=y&A=details

I have no idea if it meets your standards of quality, but that range is available.

Thanks, I will take a look at it.

I have a relative who asked me if I knew of any software for doing slide shows, or creating an e-book (not really interested in actual print book) where she could annotate the photos with titles or descriptors. Any suggestions?

Can't answer about the Canon/Nikon pricing differences, but does the lens HAVE to be a Canon? Here is a link to a thread on the "hog" that discusses a Sigma 18-300 which a pretty nice lens. Just a thought.

I am coming late to the party, but one other analogy from her own personal experience might help. Her own eyes have have an automatic ISO adjustment. When she goes outside on a sunny day her eyes need to lower the ISO before she can see comfortably and clearly. When she comes back inside, it is too dark for her to see well with her eyes set to the low sensitivity in the sun, so her eyes need to adjust to higher sensitivity (i.e. higher ISO) so that she can see in the lower light.

As for explaining noise at higher sensitivity, ask her to close her eyes (or take her into a very dark room) and then ask her if she sees little spots of light (rather than complete black). That is the noise in the system. In very low light with high sensitivity, the noise is as bright as the available light and is seen as grain.

I just tried to find the serial number on an EF-S 18-200 lens, and I feel your pain. However, go back and look at the picture in jeep daddy's post again. I had looked at the lens multiple times right where the picture showed and couldn't see the serial number until I got a bright pen light and directed it at an angle across the barrel of the lens and highlighted the edges of the numbers engraved into it. It was in the space between the CE-check-circle-10 logo and the stabilization on-off switch. Looking at it straight on (even though I now know where it is) it is virtually impossible to see.

I just happened to run across this on the Huffington Post that may be worth considering. The link is

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/12/in-a-rut-pull-yourself-from-rut_n_3672206.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

But here is the relevant section:

2. To Learn Is To Watch… And Ask
Like many Americans, I am a teach-it-yourselfer. So is the rest of my family. When I wanted to learn how to play tennis, my dad dropped me off at the local high school with a racket and a tube of three green balls, and told me to hit the backboard "until I got the hang of my swing." As an adult, when I need to screw on a ski rack or create a Google spreadsheet or cook an obscure Chinese green, I figure it out via trial and error. Why? I think I’ll understand the task more profoundly by teaching myself. A recent study at the University of Louisville however, found that figuring things out yourself takes longer -- with far less accurate results -- than observing and communicating with others in the know. Watching the experts -- and asking them for their expertise -- results in a faster, richer learning curve.

Food for thought.

Whether you like or dislike the sentiments expressed here, it was not produced by Jeff Foxworthy. Check out snopes.com

http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/idiots.asp

Goofy,

nice examples! I was going to try to demonstrate something similar, but I don't have a full frame camera, so I would have had to simulate it. I am not sure it would have been as convincing. But let me piggy-back on your example to try and make the point I was going to make.

I took some measurements of one of your DX pictures and one of your FX pictures. I apologize for the math ahead of time. I measured the width of the total image on my monitor and it was 168mm. Then I measured the length of the bicycle on the DX image and it was 127mm. Now the DX camera has a sensor that is 23.6mm wide. So, the length of the image of the bicycle on the DX sensor, call it L, is in the same ratio as 127/168. That is,

L/23.6 = 127/168, or L = 127/168*23.6 = 17.84mm

Now, the measured size of the bicycle on my monitor screen for the FX camera was 83mm. The ratio is smaller, i.e. 83/168, but the FX sensor is larger at 36mm. So, the length of the image of the bicycle on the FX sensor is

L/36 = 83/168, or L = 83/168*36 = 17.79mm

You can see that within measurement error, the physical length of the image of the bicycle on the sensor produced by a 50mm lens is the same whether that lens is on a DX or FX camera. So, a lens on a DX camera does not have greater "reach" (or magnification) than when on an FX camera. The apparent increase is due to blowing up the DX sensor image more in order to produce the same print size (4x6, 8x10, or whatever) as the FX image.

I think this is what people were trying to describe when taking about "actual" versus "effective" focal length.

Just wanted to tie off this thread with a bow. :)

I appreciate all the thoughtful advice. It has helped me clarify my thinking about what I really "need" for this trip, and given me a number of alternatives to think about. The members here are very generous in giving of their time and advice.

Thanks

Yeah, I kind of knew that I might need to be more specific. Unfortunately, I suspect that when I am in a museum I will want to shoot specific objects and in churches the architecture may be of more interest. It is looking more and more like I will need to rent a super wide angle lens to get more familiar with that perspective and compare that with what I get from my 18-200 at the shorter focal lengths and see what will work best for me (before I buy anything).

Thanks again for all the input.

I appreciate your thoughts on this subject. I have thought about replacing my EF-S 18-200 since I bought the Sigma 70-200 f2.8. I know the 24-105mm f/4L IS is a much better lens than the 18-200, but I am thinking that I may want to go with lenses that are at least f2.8 in the future. The problem is that I don't have a lot of cash to spend. So, I need to do some experimenting to see what works best for me. I may be leaning toward a wide angle zoom. I guess I also need to see how far I can push the ISO on my 60D before I get unacceptable (for me) noise.

Thanks

Thanks to pappy, davidrb, and goofy for their suggestions. I may rent a fast, wide-angle lens to try out in some local old churches.

Other suggestions still welcome.

I forgot to mention that I also have the 50mm f1.8. Did you find that wide enough?

I will be traveling in England, Scotland, Ireland and France next summer. I have a Canon 60D camera and would like advice on what would be a good lens for taking pictures in museums, churches, castles, etc. Since these tend to be low light situations, I imagine I would want fast glass, but how fast? Also, I imagine a wide lens would be useful.

Currently, I have the EF-S 18-200 f3.5-5.6 that came with the 60D. In addition, I bought a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for dog shows and grand kids' sports. That lens works for the dog shows and the kids, but I have plenty of room to work there. I am concerned about getting good indoor shots in what will often be less open surroundings.

Any suggestions (and the rationale for those suggestions) would be greatly appreciated.