Some help with zooms.

[hcker2000]

Right now I currently have a canon a2 with a 50mm f1.8 lens and I'm thinking of geting a new lens. I would like some thing that I could take tighter shots with.

I'm not looking to spend alot of money but I would like some thing that is at least the quality of the 50mm f1.8.

I think maby a 28-200 or some thing like that would be nice as that would give me some wide angle + some tight shots.

I don't know I'm no expert but if I can get some wide angle and tighter images that would make me happy.

Brand dosn't matter so long as its build is good.

EDIT:
Maby some thing like this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=206434&is=GREY&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Or maby the sigma version. How is the build/Images quality?
28-105 F2.8-4 SIGMA

[liza]

The Tamron 28-75 is a good lens for the money. Mine is extremely sharp and "L-like."

[hcker2000]

Thanks I was hoping to go a bit more than 75mm but will check out that lens.

[cactusclay]

Those mega zooms don't have the best image quality, unless you get the really expensive ones, then they still don't have the best image quality. 28-105 3.5-4.5 is a pretty good lens, has USM and isn't all that expensive, or the 28-135 IS is a few hundred more and has image stablization. Those are probably the best two consumer grade Canon zooms. Like Liza said the 28-75 seems to be a well liked lens, but doesn't have USM and I found that the AF hunts more than I liked and can't really recomend it.

[hcker2000]

Ok i realy wish I had some way to see what a picture with a 50mm and then a 100mm looked like from the same distance its kind of hard to know how much zoom I need. I was hoping to start doing some portrait work and the 50mm is kinda wide for that. Generaly have to get very close to the subject.

Is there an alternitive to the 28-75 that has a usm?

[tiziano]

I have both the Canon 28-105 3.5-5.6 and the 28-200mm 3.5-5.6.

I am unhappy of the 28-200. It's not sharp at all, and doesn't have USM.
The 28-105 is much better, and you can use it for portraits. Only, don't expect it to be as sharp as your 50mm.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Ok i realy wish I had some way to see what a picture with a 50mm and then a 100mm looked like from the same distance its kind of hard to know how much zoom I need.

http://www.tamroneurope.com/flc.htm

Is there an alternitive to the 28-75 that has a usm?

Only one I can think of is the Canon 24-70L, at $1,100. No other 2.8's in that range for Canon. USM is a Canon trademark. I checked B&H. Couldn't find any HSM Sigma's in that range, either.

[hcker2000]

I think my 50mm is spoiling me :)

Thanks very much for the link that realy helps.

Ok it looks like I could live with 70mm but 90-100 is prefered.

I'm basicly trying to stay under $150 for a good used lens. So far this is the list.
All are canon.

28-105 3.5-5.6
35-105 F4.5-5.6
35-135 F4-5.6

If one is better than the other speak up. I don't mind going from 28mm to 35mm on the bottom end if its gona meen a better picture.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

The 28-105 is a great little lens. Worth every penny. 35mm isn't gonna give you any better shot than 28mm is, technically speaking.

[Jim_T]

I'm going to vote for the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM too.. Great bang for the buck.

[hcker2000]

I may have to go with the 28-105 F4.0-5.6 ULTRASONIC as it is the cheaper model. Would you still recomend it?

Also noticed the 28-105 F2.8-4 SIGMA I'm sure the focusing would be slower then the canon but the low light capability seems alot better if the lens quality is good?

EDIT:
After reading some reviews it looks like the sigma is no ware near the quality of the canon. So if you can recomend the 28-105 F4.0-5.6 ULTRASONIC please do so.

[mrfourcows]

dont even bother about the 28-105 f/4-5.6
its a crappy lens - its just another kit lens, just that its longer with 105mm

but if you really want to but it, then its your choice
but the advice here is save up and go for the f/3.5-4.5 model at least!

[tiziano]

I may have to go with the 28-105 F4.0-5.6 ULTRASONIC as it is the cheaper model. Would you still recomend it?


No, Don't buy that one. You can find a used 28-105 3.5-5.6 on ebay for less then $150.
All reviews I have read about the 28-105 F4.0-5.6 say that it's a bad lens, and that there is a lot of difference with the 3.5-5.6 version.

[hcker2000]

Ahh ok I wonder if I could find one in a camera store for that price used?

[tiziano]

Ahh ok I wonder if I could find one in a camera store for that price used?

I bought mine in the shop under my house in Rome for 120 Euros.

[hcker2000]

Well that gives me hope. I will have to call cordcamera in columbus and see if there big store has a used one for sale.

[hcker2000]

KEH has two used 28-105's for under 150 but at listed as bgn grade. Has any bought a lens from them of this grade? If so what was you impression of it?

The two that are listed the only difference it seems is one is listed as ULTRASONIC and the other is ULTRASONIC II. Which is the better one?

[mrfourcows]

KEH has two used 28-105's for under 150 but at listed as bgn grade. Has any bought a lens from them of this grade? If so what was you impression of it?

The two that are listed the only difference it seems is one is listed as ULTRASONIC and the other is ULTRASONIC II. Which is the better one?

optically, they are claimed to be the same. mainly cosmetic changes and the number of blades.

[hcker2000]

Ahh ok which one has more blades? just curious as that would seem to be the better of the two sence they are both rated as bgn grade.

[hcker2000]

I was just reading up some more and noticed the Tamron 28-80 F3.5-5.6.

Any opinions on it? It is alot cheaper than the 28-105 canon but from what I read it was realy a sharp lens.

I lose some on the high end but I think that would be ok for most of the portrait work I would like to do.

EDIT:
If the canon is gona be the end all be all of the $150 and under zoom's just let me know. I'm just trying to get the best bang for my buck.