Dear all,

I looking for an optimal canon lens that will suit outdoor photography and that will be mounted as a default on my camera body.

I already have Canon 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM and Tamron 28mm-300mm.

Thank's, Ofir.

-- Ofir Cohen (ofirco@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001

Answers

Everyone will come up with their own preferred answer, but I vote for Canon's 28-135 USM IS.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), September 12, 2001.

For outdoor photography, presumably you mean a mix of subjects, including birds and animals, as well as landscape scenes. I would lean towards the long end here, and have several lenses to suggest. Since you want it mounted as default, that suggests you're looking for a zoom. My suggestions would be any of the 70-200Ls (ie 2.8, 2.8IS, 4), the 100-400IS L and the 35-350L. Many pro outdoor guys use the 35-350. The 100-400 is very similar to it, with that little extra reach, no wide angle and with IS, and optically rather better. The 70- 200s are the best optically, although not as long as the other lenses. The 35-350 is the only non teleconverter compatible lens in that list. The others will work with the TCs, although, unless you have an EOS 3 or 1V, you'll loose AF on the 100-400 with the 1.4X (lost on all cameras with the 2x) and on the 70-200 F4 with the 2x.

-- Isaac Sibson (Isibson@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001.

You might want to mention your budget and your subject matter. Budget-wise, recommendations can vary from $160 to $1600+. Subject- wise, "outdoor photography" can consist of anything from bird photography (in which case a "default" lens may be a telephoto lens) to landscapes (in which case a "default" lens may be a wide angle lens). But if you are wanting a "default" lens for general shooting, I would recommend the 28-135 IS. It will be sharper than your Tamron 28-300, and the IS will help handholding stability.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), September 12, 2001.

I'll put in my .02 for the EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM. I've greatly enjoyed my results using this lens. It does have some advantages over the 28-135 IS lens (also a very fine lens):

- 58 mm filter size (same as your 100 2.8 macro assuming you have the new one)

- $200 or so lower cost

- smaller size and weight

- lower power consumption (no IS)

I've been reading Art Morris' Birds as Art book: quite a few of the bird environs scenic shots are identified as having been taken with the EF 28-105. (That book is 3 or 4 years old; he may be using something else now -- at any rate, the quality of these images is quite good.)

What I'd like to see in this zoom range (24-28--135 or longer) is L glass (or DO if flare is controlled well) with faster speed, IS, and weatherproof construction. Wishing for such a lens is one of the reasons I had in the back of my mind when I chose the 28-105. I like the feel of this smaller lens in use, and its results; and when I spend more for a midrange zoom I want it to be for the lens I really want.

Well, I can dream can't I?

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), September 12, 2001.

Ofir,

Without knowing specifically what kind of shooting you want to do, it is hard to reccomend something. When I go out to shoot scenics, I mount my 50mm f/1.4 and have had beautiful results. If I were to choose a zoom I would pick the 28-135 USM IS - it has the best optics in its price range, is very versitle, and the IS allows shooting in lower light or from moving/vibratring platforms. However, Rod makes a very good argument for the less expensive and more compact 28-105 USM. If it is wildlife you are interested in, strongly consider Isaacs suggestions about longer lenses - if you have the bucks and want a long zoom, I like the 100-400 USM IS. Define your subject matter and budget and go from there.

Derrick

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), September 13, 2001.