File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hey, sorry to bother you guys, but I'm interested in taking some photos of the fourth of July fireworks show tonight in San Francisco (it's about 4 AM where I am, so in about... 17 hours it'll be going on).

Anyway, I have an old Canon Rebel SLR and a starter lens, and I wanted to buy a lens for this particular event to use with the current camera. Here's the caveat: I expect to be getting rid of the body in a month or two for a DSLR, and I want this lens to be a part of the new kit that I get in these coming months. Basically, the SLR is of medium quality, and I'm fine with that, but I want the lens to be of good lasting quality.

Tl;dr what do you guys think of the Canon EF 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM lens for a general-purpose lens? Any suggestions if I'm planning on using it at night for fireworks? What would you say is a pretty good price for this lens?

Pic related. Thanks for your help, and any other advice specifically relevant to my plans tonight would be really appreciated.
>> Anonymous
Sounds good. So you're saying that I should get the 28/2.8 instead of the 28-135/3.5-5.6 or in addition to it? I'm thinking that if the 28/2.8 is as good as you make it out to be, then I'd probably be content with just that for quite a while. This camera is secondhand and I've only ever used the starter lens, so working with a new lens will be like a whole new experience.

I'll probably be going to get this lens in a few hours from a local shop, it seems to have good deals (and by good deals I mean a little below the average prices that I'm seeing online). That said, if anyone has any other ideas or opinions on the matter, please don't hesitate to let me know. As much as I'd like to learn from experience, I'd also like to avoid wasting money on lenses or accessories that I'll end up misusing like an idiot simply because I didn't know what I was doing and ultimately didn't need it.
>> Anonymous
>>217107
Yep, instead. Most great photographers have only used a handful of lenses, most of them primes (lenses that don't zoom).

Besides being higher quality (zoom has to be built to be okay at every length, prime can be built ideal for just one) primes teach you how to compose better. After a while using the same lens, you'll be able to imagine what a picture would look like with it in advance.

If you ever actually need a zoom for some reason, or a longer lens, you've got that zoom you have now, a 28-90 I'm going to guess. That's what Canon's film kit lens is, isn't it?

But yeah, the 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 are both a great value, financially and photographically, and the only thing you could really miss would be a wide angle, something like a 20mm, and if you ever really need that you can just pop the 28 on your film camera.
>> Anonymous
The 28-135mm is well built and has a medium optical quality.

I have one and I can say that while it's not the sharpest lens in the market, but you'll probably be fine with it.

Its major problem is the "wideless" range, but there's always the 17.85mm, if you prefer.
>> Anonymous
>>217141Most great photographers have only used a handful of lenses, most of them primes (lenses that don't zoom).

lolololol so let's all use primes as well and make instantart
>> ilkore
>>217039
another to look at is the sigma 10-20mm. it's a great quality lens.

though, it depends on what kind of fireworks shot you wanted... a landscape style, with fireworks over the bay, and bridge,,, or a closeup abstract color explosion.