I am thinking about buying Canon EOS 20D and don't know which lens is better .... Canon EF 28-135 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM or Tokina AT-X 270 AF PROII 28-70mm - F2.6-2.8? Does anyone have any experience with either one of these two?

Do you have any recommendation as to when to when to buy both the camera and the lens in terms of the price? Are the prices expected to go down after Christmas?

Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thank you!!!!!!!!!

Michaela
Vernon Hills, IL

>> Canon EF 28-135 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM or Tokina AT-X 270 AF PROII 28-70mm - F2.6-2.8?
I haven't experience with either, sorry.
It depends what you want to shoot and in what conditions.
I'm using the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS and the 100-400 L IS for motorsport and the 24-70 2.8 L as a walk-about lens

I tried a Sigma lens and found it wasn't as good as the L lenses, so went back to Canon.


>> Do you have any recommendation as to when to when to buy
It seems there's no good time to buy, except when you want the camera :)
I've been waiting for prices to go down, then other models scome in at a higher price.
Or I've bought early, and watched prices tumble during the year.

Around Christmas/New Year seems good in the UK as the retailers fight for our business.
But as models age (like the 20D) and new models come in (like the 5D) prices change.
£1089 last year on New Year's Eve, and £749 this week for the 20D

I'm now in the same position at last year, I'm going to F1 testing and want a new body to take with me !

Michaela,
It really depends on what kind of shooting you will do. If you have bright sun, the Canon 28-135 lens will do fine for the average shooter. But if you be doing a lot in low light you will need a faster lens such as a f2.8 or even f1.8. In those cases the 70-200 f2.8 is good, and actually the best "all round" lens but it isn't cheap. The 50mm f1.8 is a good choice and it's under $100.
I use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS and the Canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 USM IS lenses for 99% of my shooting and 19-35mm f3.5-5.6 for the other 1%.

JS

Thank you both for your replies.

I'm trying to decide between the two lenses I mentioned (Canon EF 28-135 3.5 - 5.6 IS USM or Tokina AT-X 270 AF PROII 28-70mm - F2.6-2.8?) as these two are closer to my budget. I would use it both for indoor and outdoor pics ... mainly for parties, family gatherings, my child's sporting events (ice hockey), etc ... with this in mind, would you recommend one over the other?

... I've done a little bit of research already and noticed that in Europe, the Tokina lens is the preferred one (for its quality)

Thank you again!
Michaela

If it were me I'd go with the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8. An f3.5 will not work well in low light, especially an ice rink. The optics are excellent in the Sigma 70-200 and it can be had for around $650 new. It's AF is almost as fast as the Canon 70-200.
You could still get the 28-135 but you will need a flash for parties etc.

JS

Thank you for your advice! We're also considering buying Nikon D200 instead of the Canon 20D ... which one do you think is better? (I have posted this questions as a new topic as well).

Thank you once again!
Michaela

Pet,

I have the 28-135 and use this for my standard/basic lens. I have no problems, works in every situation. JSPhoto is correct you will need to us flash in the darker lit photos.
For the sports this just depends on if you can get close enough to the ice. I am sure if your watching your kids play you shouldnt have any problems, personally i would want a little more zoom for the sporting events(100-300/400).

I have the Canon 28-135 IS and the Canon 70 (?)-300 IS lens. Both do pretty darn well for me on the whole. I do a lot of action shooting of dogs running by me at full speed, and the IS aspect makes my job a whole lot easier. As a result, it's an important feature to me. Neither lens is fast enough to suit me if I were to get picky about it, but I've been able to get by. Now if I could just get them to focus faster...

This is ironic. :) I have just started to get serious with portrait photography, and I've been struggling a little with getting fast enough exposures to freeze a restless dog. This thread kind of reminded me that my 28-135 is not only a little slow indoors, but unnecessary for portrait work. I've really developed a habit of using this lens all the time!

Dug out the old 50mm 1.8, and suddenly, no troubles. LOL

I'd say go with the 20D, but then I will always pick Canon over Nikon. When I was first looking at DSLR's I had heard too many stories about the Nikon's and problems, and then more problems getting them serviced. But the real kicker for me was that I just liked the feel of that big ole Canon. The 20D isn't as big, but I think it's still a better deal all the way around.

JS

Michaela,
It really depends on what kind of shooting you will do. If you have bright sun, the Canon 28-135 lens will do fine for the average shooter. But if you be doing a lot in low light you will need a faster lens such as a f2.8 or even f1.8. In those cases the 70-200 f2.8 is good, and actually the best "all round" lens but it isn't cheap. The 50mm f1.8 is a good choice and it's under $100.
I use the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 USM IS and the Canon 28-300mm f3.5-5.6 USM IS lenses for 99% of my shooting and 19-35mm f3.5-5.6 for the other 1%.

JS

I own a 20D and have the 70-200 f2.8 L series lens. I also have the 2x teleconverter. I shoot soccer games and have been thinking about the 28-300 L series lens, anyone with experience using this lens. I have been worried that optics must be difficult for a lens with this range.

Petrk,

You might want to consider buying a few "prime" lenses. They're fixed focal length lenses that usually have a larger apeture and better optical quality for lower cost. You won't have as much flexibility as you would with a zoom lens, and you may have to change lenses depending on the situation.

For the cost of one 70-200mm f/2.8 (w/o IS), you can get 2-3 prime lenses.

Is there any reason you are not considering the Canon 17-85? This gives you the same range as the 28-135 but is better for the 20D given its smaller CMOS. I have used the 28-135 on various cameras now for the past 5-6 years and have really liked it's performance. The only thing it does do is flares a lot with the sun in the picture. Having just gone to the 20D myself, I can tell you that now I use the Canon 17-40L f/4.0 lens as my primary. I think that having the 28-135 on the 20D just doesn't give me wide enough coverage. Another thing. The 28-135 (and the 17-40 for that matter) are a bit slower than some of the more expensive lenses. However, the 20D is relatively noise free at even ISO 800, so does lens speed really matter? Not so much for me. I have even taken pictures recently at ISO 1600 that have been pretty good. Much better than film at these speeds and don't even remind me of high speed slide film. If your decision is indeed between the Canon and Tokina lens only, I would take the Canon. But you may reconsider limiting yourself to lenses that turn into 45mm at the wide end if you want to take indoor group shots. It may not be wide enough.
Greg