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 76 - 92 of 92, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/06/2005 01:09:16 PM · #76
yael,
the 28-105 f4 is an entry lens and the 28-105 f3.5 is a midlevel lens. The f3.5 is in same class as the 28-135IS and I think most consider it optically similar to the IS. Popular Photography's website has a list of their recent lens tests and they have the f4 version.
//popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=2&article_id=351&page_number=1
Only review on the f3.5 version is here //www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28-105.
I still think the Tamron has the best optics but you have to like the range of the zoom.
02/06/2005 01:15:39 PM · #77
lenkphotos,
I also agree with you. I think for your needs, a 28-75 f2.8 is a better fit considering your needs and the other lens you have. You now have a GREAT selection of high quality lens from 17-200mm. I've seen your photos and they are great. You should get more Tamron lens and instead of selling the L lens on eBay, sell it to me, Ha Ha Ha.
Isn't it great that we have so much choice to mull over? It's so fun...
02/06/2005 02:32:03 PM · #78
yael,
Sorry to hijack your blog topic, but I found a site that has all the lens in question reviewed, often in comparison with another.
Check it out at
//www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/
You can see the comparo btwn Canon 28-90 (your's) vs. 28-105 f3.5 vs 28-135IS, Tamron XR 28-75, and many more. It includes cropped shots to compare at various settings.
02/06/2005 03:07:57 PM · #79
[quote=yido] Another option is the Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 AT-X 242AF Autofocus ($300). I heard good things about this one as well but I've no personal experience with any of these lenses. It's just what I've heard from many others.unquote

I have just purchased the Tonkina AF 24-200MM AT-X. I did this after a lot of research. I am more than pleased with this lens. Its very well built looks like a lens costing much more. I have only taken a few photos with this lens but am more than happy with the results. It was £179 here in the UK. Quality and value for money. I am off to Egypt at the end of this month and needed a walkabout lens and this will be just the job.

02/06/2005 04:13:45 PM · #80
i have the sigma 28-135 macro lens now and use it all the time
great for catching most things i need woeld recommend it
02/06/2005 04:21:35 PM · #81
Yael,

The 28-135 IS is great everyday walkaround lens. It's my everyday lens of choice, I really don't know anyone who has regretted purchasing it.

Totally off-topic, I just wanted to mention that Yael is one of my favorite names. :)

-Terry
02/07/2005 03:45:32 AM · #82
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Yael,

The 28-135 IS is great everyday walkaround lens. It's my everyday lens of choice, I really don't know anyone who has regretted purchasing it.

Totally off-topic, I just wanted to mention that Yael is one of my favorite names. :)

-Terry


Why, thank you Terry (: Not that I choose the name, but I approve of my parents choice <LOL>.

When I started this discussion I was set on the 28-135 IS. And I heard here a lot of good things about it. But I also heard it doesn't zoom much after 105 anyway (is it true?). And it is heavier than the 105. So if it is of the same level as the 28-105 (is it really?) I am now thinking that maybe the 28-105 f3.5/4.5 is a better choice.

Putting that aside, I read a fantastic things about the tamron. I am green with envy. I want it. The only problem for me is the range. The 105, or 125 is much better for my needs ):

And I have to choose, since I want a one everyday walkaround lens. It is way more practical for me...

Oh, the decisions we have to make. LOL.
02/07/2005 04:09:47 AM · #83
Originally posted by yido:

yael,
Sorry to hijack your blog topic, but I found a site that has all the lens in question reviewed, often in comparison with another.
Check it out at
//www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/
You can see the comparo btwn Canon 28-90 (your's) vs. 28-105 f3.5 vs 28-135IS, Tamron XR 28-75, and many more. It includes cropped shots to compare at various settings.


Tom, feel free to give me as much info as posibble (: that's why we are here after all. I am going to visit every site you mention here, looking for pieces of information. LOL.
02/07/2005 07:54:32 AM · #84
Originally posted by yael27:


When I started this discussion I was set on the 28-135 IS. And I heard here a lot of good things about it. But I also heard it doesn't zoom much after 105 anyway (is it true?). And it is heavier than the 105. So if it is of the same level as the 28-105 (is it really?) I am now thinking that maybe the 28-105 f3.5/4.5 is a better choice.

Putting that aside, I read a fantastic things about the tamron. I am green with envy. I want it. The only problem for me is the range. The 105, or 125 is much better for my needs ):

And I have to choose, since I want a one everyday walkaround lens. It is way more practical for me...

Oh, the decisions we have to make. LOL.


I have had the 28-105 for over a year now.
Let me tell you for the money($200.), it's one of the best you can buy.
Yes it's definitely not as sharp as L glass, but I have shot several weddings and portrait shoots and practically everything else with it. Take a look hereat all my client shots, my NY shots in Places, my reunion, and the New Yrs eve gallery...pretty much all with the 28-105.
I just bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and so far am not wowed with it. Everyone says how sharp it is, and I am not so sure. I needed the 2.8 though, and didn't want to pay for a Canon right now.
For your every day use, the Canon 28-105 is great, and the extra reach over 75 is good to have.
Just make sure you get the 3.5-4.5 and not the other one.
I thought maybe I would sell mine, but don't think I am ready to part with it.

BTW, I believe the IS one is twice the price, much heavier, and optically about the same. I shoot handheld at 1/20th wih no problems...so I don't for a minute miss not having the IS version.

Message edited by author 2005-02-07 07:56:55.
02/07/2005 03:56:42 PM · #85
Doesn't Sigma do a 24-135 f2.8-4.5? In Europe it costs 359 Euro, so pretty reasnoble.
With this lens you have the range and the f2.8 at wide angles.
I havent used the lens, but just thought I would add it to the thread to help confuse you ;-), Maybe someone else has some experience with it.
02/07/2005 04:00:05 PM · #86
Wide angle, telephoto, AND handholdability. 17-85 IS.
Anything higher than 24mm on the wide end will be lacking in the wide angle range.
02/08/2005 12:44:16 AM · #87
Yael,

Congrats, this seems to be the most popular topic on the forum by far. I've seen a lot of lenses thrown about but most seem to be talking about their favorite lens and not sticking with the original topic of this post.

First, Yael has a DR with a 28-90mm lens and is looking at a Canon 28-105mm f3.5 vs a 28-135IS.
Second, she is also wondering if there may be something else as well. Third, she has a Canon 75-300mm and a 50 f1.8 Mark II (which she doesn't use much).
Fourth, from prior posts, she doesn't seem to want wider than 28mm but seems interested in more than 90mm tele.
Lastly, she doesn't want to spend a fortune (e.g. L lens) and wants a relatively light lens.

Well having said that and looking for lenses in the topics price range.

Even though I personally own a 28-135IS and love it, I think 28-105 would fit your needs better b/c I think it's optics is fairly close to the 28-135 IS (check the Bob Atkins tests), while it is $200 cheaper and lighter. It has slightly less range, but I persoanlly don't think it is that much. My friend has it on his film Canon as his only lens and loves it.

I think the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is an excellent lens from reading all the reviews and opinions of reader, but I think you will miss the extra zoom from the 28-105/135IS. It is about $350, so it is over $100 more than the 28-105. While I know you have a 75-300 and hence will have no gap in coverage, I personally feel that there is something very useful from a 28-low 100's range and changing lens everytime you want to go more than 75mm seems painful. For walking around and shooting in Urban settings, I generally prefer upto about 150mm of focal length.

The Sigma 24-135 (mid $200's) is another option but according to popular photography's review, they seemed luke warm to it. Plus having just bought a similar level Sigma lens (70-300 APO Macro Super II), I can tell you that Sigmas (without HSM) focuses slower and much noisier than Canon USM lenses. I don't mind it on my occassional telephoto lens but as my main lens, it probably would bother me. There are many other mid range zooms from other's as well, but I've no experience with any of them nor have heard overwhelming praise about any of them.

The megazooms like Tokina's 24-200 or the Tamron's 28-300mm are another option, but Yael already has a 75-300. Once again, check the Bob Atkins site, these megazooms are heavier (esp. Tokina-described as "built like a tank") and at the tele photo end, perform margianlly worse than the Canon 75-300.

Generally, everything else being equal (meaning not comparing a cheap lens to an L lens), more range that a zoom has, more compromise in optics are made. Biggest compromise in optics are usually seen with wide aperatures, at the corner of the picture, where things are less sharp, and under difficult lighting situations (even the cheapest lens can make a good picture in ideal lighting). Third party lens are usually cheaper but slower and noisier. And I still say the photographer makes the biggest difference and that mulling things about lens options are soooooooooo fun.


02/08/2005 02:30:18 AM · #88
Originally posted by yido:

Yael,

First, Yael has a DR with a 28-90mm lens and is looking at a Canon 28-105mm f3.5 vs a 28-135IS.
Second, she is also wondering if there may be something else as well. Third, she has a Canon 75-300mm and a 50 f1.8 Mark II (which she doesn't use much).
Fourth, from prior posts, she doesn't seem to want wider than 28mm but seems interested in more than 90mm tele.
Lastly, she doesn't want to spend a fortune (e.g. L lens) and wants a relatively light lens.

Well having said that and looking for lenses in the topics price range.

Even though I personally own a 28-135IS and love it, I think 28-105 would fit your needs better b/c I think it's optics is fairly close to the 28-135 IS (check the Bob Atkins tests), while it is $200 cheaper and lighter. It has slightly less range, but I persoanlly don't think it is that much. My friend has it on his film Canon as his only lens and loves it.

I think the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di is an excellent lens from reading all the reviews and opinions of reader, but I think you will miss the extra zoom from the 28-105/135IS. It is about $350, so it is over $100 more than the 28-105. While I know you have a 75-300 and hence will have no gap in coverage, I personally feel that there is something very useful from a 28-low 100's range and changing lens everytime you want to go more than 75mm seems painful. For walking around and shooting in Urban settings, I generally prefer upto about 150mm of focal length.



Good morning,

Basically I agree with everything you say(you summarize it beautifully!!) - including that the photographer is the one that will make the difference. But hey, it is so much easier to blame my lens in my lack of ribbons. LOL. Just kidding. I really think after 3 or more years of using the 28-90 it is about time to get something better.

(Note- while using film I rarely used this lens. I mostly use the 75-300. Since I move to digital, I find I can't use the 75-300, because around 200 it doesn't get enough light, and there is a movment when handheld...).

So i am looking for one lens, that will be my main walkaround lens, and will "free" me from the 75-300, and will be better (quality) than my 28-90.

After reading everything written here about three times, including visiting in all the sites people mentioned, and reading all the reviews everyone here recommanded, I am now choosing between 2 lens:
canon 28-105 and Tamron 28-75mm XR Di.
One had a better range (for my uses) and the other is reputed to be better optically, and should be faster.

I have another question, if anyone still patient enough after 4 pages. LOL. I read at one of the articles that the tamrom works well with multiply??? What exactly is it? I found just one sentence regarding it, and was hoping that maybe it is solve my problems!!!
Will it lower the quality? Is it heavy? is it expensive?

thank you everyone for giving me all the info here. It was enlightening.
I didn't know it was so complicated to choose a lens. Or is it just me??? LOL.
02/08/2005 08:24:06 AM · #89
Yael, I believe you're referring to the 1.4X multiplier, an add-on for the Tamron. This will multiply the effective focal length of the lens from 28-75 to 39-105. You do lose one stop of light with this, however. But from the reviews the quality with the multiplier is quite good. Check the Bob Atkins review and comparison of the Tamron with the Canon 28-135. He shows images made with the multiplier - quite impressive...

02/08/2005 11:34:32 AM · #90
Yael, the multiplier might be what you need. You can have a sharp fast 28-75 lens and if you add the 1.4x multiplier, then you can have a f3.539-105 (assuming that lenkphotos math is correct). I don't know how much the 1.4x magnifier is but that would push the price to about $400, similar to a 28-135IS, but it'll still be lighter. They say that using a magnifier does soften the image a bit, so you may have to use a smaller aperature if you really want a sharp picture. I think if you are going to mainly use the 28-75mm range, then it's good. If you don't mind adding a magnifier and getting a slightly softer and slower lens for the 75-105 range, then this might be a good idea as well. However, you'll have to see if this will be worth more than just having a 28-135IS since the price will be about the same.

02/08/2005 11:50:29 AM · #91
Yael,
If you are considering btwn the Tamron with 1.4x magnifier and the Canon 28-105 then the range is the same at 105. However, the price of the Tamron set up will be about $350 for the lens and $80 for the magnifier. It will cost more than twice the cost of the Canon and you will have to add/remove the magnifier when zooming past 75mm, or leave it on and have a 39-105mm. You will get slightly poorer optics, I don't know by how much, which goes against the original reason to purchase the Tamron. If you don't use the magnifier a lot then Tamron would have better optics, I think. Now it a matter of money/convinience of not changing the magnifier vs. better optics and having to add/remove the magnifier.
02/11/2005 10:05:13 PM · #92
Yael,
Well, don't keep us in suspense. What did you get and do you like it???
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/19/2021 07:12:13 PM

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: 09/19/2021 07:12:13 PM EDT.