[mds82]

I am looking to get a new lens for pretty much all around use. Image stabilization will help to get rid of blurriness in lower light, so i think thats a must. Has anyone used this lens or seen it in person?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...9&modelid=7337

[Ulrikgm]

Originally Posted by mds82

I am looking to get a new lens for pretty much all around use. Image stabilization will help to get rid of blurriness in lower light, so i think thats a must. Has anyone used this lens or seen it in person?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...9&modelid=7337

What kind of camera do you have?

[mds82]

a Canon XTi

[TurboFan]

No experience with that lens, but lots of experience with IS / VR.

I'm not too sure I'd spend the money for IS at those focal lengths. I'd spend the money on faster aperatures. All things being equal (and they never are, but humor me for a minute), the faster lens (aka, larger aperature, or smaller f/ stop) will yield a sharper image than the camera using IS. I think IS / VR is a great tool for long tele's, where a faster f/ stop quadruples the price of the lens. Take my 80-400 - at 400 handheld, the VR is very nice, even with the f/5.6 being the fastest aperature. The 400mm f/4 is more than twice the price of the 80-400 VR.

What is the cost of the above zoom in a constant f/2.8? If it's within 20% of the IS lens, I'd go with the f/2.8.

[hockeynut]

I am in the same predicament. I have the XTi with the kit lenses (plus a 75-300 and 50mm f1.8). Looking for a nice walk-around lens that's fast and not terribly expensive.

[Ulrikgm]

I got the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS a couple of month back. It is VERY sharp even judging by L standard and you get both very good speed for a zoom lens and IS on top of that. I have taken pictures in VERY dark rooms at 0,5sec. exposure and they are okay.

Not as big a zoom area as the lens you mention but at a 1,6 crop factor it gives a very usable range. I got it instead of 24-105mm f/4 L because it has more in the wide end which I need for shooting indoors and because of the increased speed. It is as sharp as the 24-105mm f/4 L.

My camera is Canon 350D

Ulrik

[mds82]

Thanks for the reply's

I'm still looking into ideas. i read a review that the 28-105mm took slightly crisper pictures vs the 28-135mm IS

[Etnies]

I've got this lens, and it's been pretty good. Images are a little softer than what I would like, but the IS does help when shooting slower shutter speeds. The price I last saw on Amazon.com for it was around $380, which is pretty good I think.

I use Photoshop a lot, so it's easy to go in there and sharpen the image if I need to, so that saves me as far as softness goes.

And the 17-55 mentioned is a great lens, and is indeed very sharp for a non-L lens. The trade off of course is the price, if you're comparing it to a 28-135.

In the end though, if you're looking for something in the focal length range of a 28-135, I would go back and settle on the 28-105 if I could choose again. Little bit sharper is what I have heard as well, plus the f/4.5 is a good bit better than f/5.6.