DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens for Canon EOS
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/04/2005 02:52:28 PM · #1
Hi there,

I am thinking about getting a better lens for my EOS300 camera.
I have the 28-90 lens that came with the kit. I also have
75-300 lens.

I think about getting the 28-135IS (4-5.6), but am wondering about the 28-105 (3.5-4.5).

Which one is better? What's more important - the IS ot the f (3.5-4.5 is much better, right?). And will I see ant change comparing the lens I have today?

Oh, and should I look more? Did I miss a lens that is even better, and not part of the L series?

Thanks.
02/04/2005 03:04:40 PM · #2
according to photozone, the 28-135mm is optically better than the 28-105mm, however all of the following lenses are rated higher than both of these and they're all cheaper:

28mm 2.8
50mm 1.8
50mm 2.5 macro
85mm 1.8
100mm 2.0
135mm 2.8 SF

...but of course, they aren't zooms
02/04/2005 03:08:39 PM · #3
handsdown get the 50/1.8
I have the 28-105/3.5-4.5,70-200/2.8L, 24-70/2.8L, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8
and the 50 was my first lens and still one of my favorites that I use frequently! And talk about a bargin, for only $70!
02/04/2005 03:09:30 PM · #4
The prime lens suggestions here are silly. They aren't the same kind of lens the original poster is asking about.. lol
02/04/2005 03:14:10 PM · #5
Unless you have a real aversion to third party lenses, or need the extra reach (you're probably covered with the 75-300), consider the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 for $369. It's a great all-around lens, and even sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 15:14:48.
02/04/2005 03:17:42 PM · #6
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

The prime lens suggestions here are silly. They aren't the same kind of lens the original poster is asking about.. lol


Thanks for noticing. LOL.
02/04/2005 03:23:08 PM · #7
Originally posted by ericsuth:

handsdown get the 50/1.8
I have the 28-105/3.5-4.5,70-200/2.8L, 24-70/2.8L, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8
and the 50 was my first lens and still one of my favorites that I use frequently! And talk about a bargin, for only $70!


Ouch. What will you say when I tell you I have that one (Canon 50mm f/1.8)?
I never use it, so I forgot to mention it ):
I just use the zoom so much!!! I hate cropping, and I also have a film EOS300... and I try to make the composition as best as can while shooting, and not with photoshop, and I guess I am not that ggod a photograpger. LOL...

Any tips regarding using it?? (:
02/04/2005 03:25:12 PM · #8
Originally posted by hopper:

according to photozone, the 28-135mm is optically better than the 28-105mm, however all of the following lenses are rated higher than both of these and they're all cheaper:


I didn't know that! Thanks!!! I thought they are of the same level!!!
Are there any reviews at photozone? What's the URL?
02/04/2005 03:27:39 PM · #9
Originally posted by scalvert:

Unless you have a real aversion to third party lenses, or need the extra reach (you're probably covered with the 75-300), consider the Tamron 28-75 XR Di f/2.8 for $369. It's a great all-around lens, and even sharper than the Canon 50mm f/1.8.


I always though that it is better to stay with Canon. I have no idea why. Just heard so, and it sound reasonable. LOL. Where can I read about the lens you mention? Do you have it? Is it really that good? WIkk it work with both EOS300 (D and film)?
Thanks.
02/04/2005 03:31:14 PM · #10
I don't do much landscape (okay, none!) photography but I was using my 50mm 1.8 to attempt city shots last night and it's a very good lens. Very nice. Clear/sharp..and super cheapo. $129CND.

02/04/2005 03:32:07 PM · #11
Hey Yael,
Since purchasing the EF 50mm 1.8 I have used my various Zoom lenses less and less. Although I did pick up on ebay an old (probably one of the first) EF lenses which is a 35mm-105mm 3.5-4.5 PUSH/PULL zoom lens which is absolutely fantastic, can't believe I lucked out on it. None of this USM either, when this baby focuses you and anyone within 10 foot knows its focusing!! But for the price I paid I got a good low - medium tele that is solidly built and pretty sharp at 4.5
02/04/2005 03:38:11 PM · #12
Originally posted by yael27:


I didn't know that! Thanks!!! I thought they are of the same level!!!
Are there any reviews at photozone? What's the URL?


//www.photozone.de
02/04/2005 03:38:55 PM · #13
It looks like all (!!) of you guys think the 50mm 1.8 is the best. And I am lucky enough to have it, and stupid enough not to use it ):

How do you get the composition to be perfect without the zoom????
H-E-L-P!!!
02/04/2005 03:44:08 PM · #14
Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I don't do much landscape (okay, none!) photography but I was using my 50mm 1.8 to attempt city shots last night and it's a very good lens. Very nice. Clear/sharp..and super cheapo. $129CND.


I agree with many of the posts here: the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, especially considering the price, but....

it doesn't do much for you if you want to go out with one lens on the camera.

That's why I'm keeping my 28-135 IS. It has by far the best optics for the money, considering a wide zoom range (only one in it's class, I think) and the added IS is great for low light shots of still objects. It's not too big, and a great all around lens. It's not L glass, but you can't have it all.

I had the 28-105 and just didn't find it gave me enough range as a single "walk-around" lens.

Just my $0.02
02/04/2005 03:45:26 PM · #15
Originally posted by yael27:

It looks like all (!!) of you guys think the 50mm 1.8 is the best. And I am lucky enough to have it, and stupid enough not to use it ):

How do you get the composition to be perfect without the zoom????
H-E-L-P!!!


Use your legs. (seriously).
02/04/2005 03:46:36 PM · #16
Originally posted by yael27:

It looks like all (!!) of you guys think the 50mm 1.8 is the best. And I am lucky enough to have it, and stupid enough not to use it ):

How do you get the composition to be perfect without the zoom????
H-E-L-P!!!


It has zoom. It's a really unknown fact about that lens. It's called "FEET". LOL!

SHHHH! Don't tell everyone else though, it's a secret.
02/04/2005 03:49:49 PM · #17
Originally posted by yael27:

Where can I read about the lens you mention? Do you have it? Is it really that good? WIkk it work with both EOS300 (D and film)?


I was reluctant to buy a non-Canon lens, too, but since I got this Tamron, it has become my "usual" lens. Two of my last four challenge entries were taken with the Tamron (both of them ribbon-winners). It scores very highly in these lens ratings, and it'll work fine on film and digital EOS cameras. It's a bargain for the price.
02/04/2005 03:50:16 PM · #18
Originally posted by mariomel:

Originally posted by yael27:

It looks like all (!!) of you guys think the 50mm 1.8 is the best. And I am lucky enough to have it, and stupid enough not to use it ):

How do you get the composition to be perfect without the zoom????
H-E-L-P!!!


It has zoom. It's a really unknown fact about that lens. It's called "FEET". LOL!

SHHHH! Don't tell everyone else though, it's a secret.


Ouch! That heart ):
What I meant is that most of the time I can't get (by foot) to the perfect place for the shot, and the zoom help. But I am sure you all knew what I meant. LOL.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 16:12:23.
02/04/2005 03:51:22 PM · #19
FWIW, I have the Canon 28-105, but it hasn't been on my camera once since I got the Tamron. My only (minor) complaints are that the lens cap isn't as easy to snap on, and the zoom ring is reversed compared to the Canons.

Message edited by author 2005-02-04 15:53:53.
02/04/2005 03:52:31 PM · #20
Originally posted by mariomel:

Originally posted by GoldBerry:

I don't do much landscape (okay, none!) photography but I was using my 50mm 1.8 to attempt city shots last night and it's a very good lens. Very nice. Clear/sharp..and super cheapo. $129CND.


I agree with many of the posts here: the 50mm 1.8 is a great lens, especially considering the price, but....

it doesn't do much for you if you want to go out with one lens on the camera.

That's why I'm keeping my 28-135 IS. It has by far the best optics for the money, considering a wide zoom range (only one in it's class, I think) and the added IS is great for low light shots of still objects. It's not too big, and a great all around lens. It's not L glass, but you can't have it all.

I had the 28-105 and just didn't find it gave me enough range as a single "walk-around" lens.

Just my $0.02


Tha was my thought exactly!!! I can't go everywhere with all three lens. I am almost willing to part from all of them, if I can get one that will cover most of my needs. And I was hoping the 28-135 will do that. If it is better (optically speaking) from the 28-105, than does it mean that the f isn't as important?

Thanks.
02/04/2005 04:01:58 PM · #21
Originally posted by scalvert:

FWIW, I have the Canon 28-105, but it hasn't been on my camera once since I got the Tamron. My only (minor) complaints are that the lens cap isn't as easy to snap on, and the zoom ring is reversed compared to the Canons.


I will have to look for more info. Is it such a good lens because of the 2.8? I was hoping to get a better zoom. I love to zoon in. When I was shooting with film I mostly used 75-300. Do they have a lens that has a better zoon, and still 2.8, and as good as this one ?
They probably do. I just never thought about looking into it...
02/04/2005 04:16:03 PM · #22
Yael,

Have the Canon 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6 lens on my camera most of the time. Not a ribbon winner but all the highest rated photos in my portfolio (except the Anvil shot) were taken with that lens. Only the Botany one was advanced editing. The owl below was also taken with that lens. My only frustration with the lens is my own ability (or inability) to use it to its full potential. My own thoughts: focusing it can sometimes be a hassel. Use of the macro tends to be cumbersome. Find that the barrel slides out too easily when titlted down. Don't know if this is exactly the kind of input you had in mind but that is mine for all it's worth. BOL Oh yes. You have to buy some pretty damn big filter lens (72mm) to fit it.
02/04/2005 04:19:36 PM · #23
Also consider the sigma 18-125mm at about half the price of the canon and a better range. This stays on my camera most of the time.
02/04/2005 04:23:57 PM · #24
Originally posted by marbo:

Also consider the sigma 18-125mm at about half the price of the canon and a better range. This stays on my camera most of the time.

Is it as good as original canon lens? Can I ask what are the f numbers?
02/04/2005 04:26:13 PM · #25
Originally posted by drydoc:

Yael,

Have the Canon 28-135 IS 3.5-5.6 lens on my camera most of the time. Not a ribbon winner but all the highest rated photos in my portfolio (except the Anvil shot) were taken with that lens. Only the Botany one was advanced editing. The owl below was also taken with that lens. My only frustration with the lens is my own ability (or inability) to use it to its full potential. My own thoughts: focusing it can sometimes be a hassel. Use of the macro tends to be cumbersome. Find that the barrel slides out too easily when titlted down. Don't know if this is exactly the kind of input you had in mind but that is mine for all it's worth. BOL Oh yes. You have to buy some pretty damn big filter lens (72mm) to fit it.


That's exactly the kind of input I was looking for (: Thank you.
Just wondering - why do you feel it isn't a ribbon winner? I don't think the ribbon winners are using L lens, or do they ):
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 10:39:38 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/03/2021 10:39:38 AM EDT.