Better introductory lens: 28-135mm, 24-85mm, or 28-105mm?

[shiningstardv]

I am going to be purchasing a new Canon 20D soon hopefully, and I need a decent walk-around lens to accompany the camera until I can learn a little more and save up for some L glass. I have done many hours of research, and I think I have it narrowed down to these three lenses:

Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS (about $450)
Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 II (about $250)
Canon EF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (about $300)

Now I realize there is a difference in zoom range and a $200 variation in price, but which of these lenses will do well as my only lens for a while? I have heard some very bad things about the 28-135mm but also some good things. The 28-105mm seems to be considered a very solid basic consumer lens, while the 24-85mm seems to be a good solid lens and also gives slightly wider angle.

I do not care much about the difference in zoom ranges. The $200 doesn't matter THAT much either, however it is always nice to have more cash in my pocket when given the choice. I just want a nice all around lens, without shelling out $1000+ for an L.

So my main concern is about the speed of the lenses (and the IS), the sharpness, and the quickness/accuracy of the autofocus. I just don't know which one to go for. (BTW, I will also be buying a "Nifty Fifty" 50mm f1.8 prime in addition to which lens I choose, but that's the limit on lenses for a while.)

What are your opinions and experiences with these lenses? Will I be happy with any, or will one suit me better than the others? Thanks, I appriciate your help and thoughts.

[ijohnson]

It was my first lens and I have enjoyed it tremendously. It performs excellently with a lot of light and stopped down a bit. I recommend it unless you like taking low-light shots.

I went out sight seeing on a volcanic island today in Korea and left the L's in the bag. It was a sunny day and it was able to do everything I needed it to. I feel certain the pictures came out sharp, contrasty and beautiful. I took everything at about f/8 and about 1/250-500.

Hope that helps.

[shiningstardv]

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but which lens are you referring to? I don't seem to see mention of it in your post. Thanks.

[WestFalcon]

I've had all 3 and the 28-135 IS is the only one that I still use. It is the best of these three in my opinion. The IS is nice too. I get 16x20's from this lens that rival medium format.

[ijohnson]

HAHA!! I was referring to the 28-135.

[Morden]

I haven't any experience of the other two, but I use my 28-135 a LOT!

I like it. :)

[Tom W]

I have the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 - its very good, particularly considering the price. Focus is very fast, the lens is light, and its pretty sharp stopped down to f/5.6 or so. Pretty useful range, though it could be a little wider on the 1.6X sensor.

The 28-135 IS is very well liked here as well.

All 3 lenses are Canon's mid-grade quality and I would expect good results from any of them.

[nosquare2003]

All 3 lenses are Canon's mid-grade quality and I would expect good results from any of them.

Yes, they are quite similar in terms of optics.

[roanjohn]

..........ever consider the tamron?? 28-75 f2.8??

Ro1

[shiningstardv]

Yeah, actually, that was a 4th one I was looking at. The only reason I didn't mention it was because it wasn't a Canon brand, and I was concerned about the AF system. As far as the Tamron compared to these three lenses, what would you say is best to do? Thanks for all your help.

[roanjohn]

Yeah, actually, that was a 4th one I was looking at. The only reason I didn't mention it was because it wasn't a Canon brand, and I was concerned about the AF system. As far as the Tamron compared to these three lenses, what would you say is best to do? Thanks for all your help.

Don't be concerned.........the Tamron AF is very very good!!! I've owned the lens and it served me very well.........

AND!!! the best reason to go for the Tamron - its a constant 2.8 on the whole zoom range.

Ro1

[shiningstardv]

So would you say out of the above 4 lenses, the Tamron would be the best for what I want?

[nosquare2003]

So would you say out of the above 4 lenses, the Tamron would be the best for what I want?

I'd say so if you don't have a specific focal length requirement.

BTW, the Tamron lens AF speed will not be a problem if you compare it with the 3 Canon lenses.

[shiningstardv]

All right, thanks very much. You have really helped me!

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd also go with tamron. 28-75 f/2.8 and some funny lettering.

Close to the L glass and unlike your 3, it's definitely a keeper.

[MarkH]

I like my 28-135 IS and use it all the time.

However:
If I was starting now I would get the Tamron because it is sharper and offers f2.8. I would also save for a longer lens to cover the shots that need more than 75mm, maybe a Canon 70-200 f4L (best bang for the bucks). If you want a wider lens then save for your 3rd lens and get a Canon 17-40 f4L.

There you have it, 3 good lenses from 17mm to 200mm. Add a 1.4x teleconverter to take you to 280mm (f5.6 so AF still works fine).

Get the Tamron first as it will cover general photography quite well, add the others as finances allow.

[Cadwell]

I like my 28-135 IS and use it all the time.

However:
If I was starting now I would get the Tamron because it is sharper and offers f2.8. I would also save for a longer lens to cover the shots that need more than 75mm, maybe a Canon 70-200 f4L (best bang for the bucks). If you want a wider lens then save for your 3rd lens and get a Canon 17-40 f4L.

There you have it, 3 good lenses from 17mm to 200mm. Add a 1.4x teleconverter to take you to 280mm (f5.6 so AF still works fine).

Get the Tamron first as it will cover general photography quite well, add the others as finances allow.

What he said, apart from the fact that I loathe my 28-135mm and never use it ;)

[sp00g3]

I'd also go with tamron. 28-75 f/2.8 and some funny lettering.

Close to the L glass and unlike your 3, it's definitely a keeper.

I just got this lense and holy cow is it sharp! It eats the canon 50 1.8 for lunch. It is still nice to have the exstra 1 f-stop but WOW.. plus it's heavy, I got it with a 2x ND filter for those bright outside days and a UV (Both the Hoya super coated filters. :)

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd also go with tamron. 28-75 f/2.8 and some funny lettering.

Close to the L glass and unlike your 3, it's definitely a keeper.

I just got this lense and holy cow is it sharp! It eats the canon 50 1.8 for lunch.
:lol: I wouldn't go that far, but it's really really sharp.

[shiningstardv]

Isn't the 50mm f1.8 Mk. I supposed to be a lot better than the 50mm f1.8 Mk. II? Is it worth paying the extra money and extra time to find the Mk. I lens?

[Johnny Bravo]

The 28-135 was my first lens, and now a year later I've bought and sold a LOT of 'L' glass--but still have the 28-135 and still use it and like it. It's my 'beater' lens, and I'm constantly surprised at the quality (high) of the images I get with it.

It's a great value in a very versatile lens.

[shiningstardv]

Yeah, I think if the 28-135mm was a stop faster, I would get it. But it is just too slow for my taste as my first lens, and the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 seems just about perfect. Maybe I will end up buying the 28-135mm after I regain financial status after my 20D/lens/accessories spree! :lol:

[ijohnson]

Yeah, it is slow (slowest I own), but on a sunny day, if I can only take one lens it is likely to be the 28-135.