28-135 : Canon vs Tamron vs Sigma ?

[pierrot]

Difficult choice here. I clearly miss a glass in this range, and there seems to be three competitors:

Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS rated 3.25/5 by Photozone.de is $410 at B&H
Tamron 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 is rated 3.51 by Photozone.de is $370 at B&H
Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 is rated only 2.88 by Photozone is $319 at B&H

Tough choice for me. As I never tried any of them... I'd like to get your comments and user feedback, if any (plenty of you I'm sure) ;) Thx!

[Cadwell]

Dunno... I have (and don't like) the Canon one. Is that any help?

[Naytwan]

I had the sigma and the canon. The canon hands down was the better lens. Way sharper.

[Olegis]

I think that the Canon has the edge here because of the IS and the USM and FTM for focussing. A friend of nime has the Canon 28-135, I used it in a few occasions and liked the results very much - the zoom range is useful for a walkaround lens, the AF is very fast and very silent and the optical performance is quite good once you get past the aperture of f/7.1-8.0 or so. The IS is terrific - I don't have any lens with IS, but from what I've experienced with that Canon, this sure seems like a very nice feature to get for low-light situations.

[gcogger]

I went for the Tamron, since I figured the 24mm at the wide end was more important to me than the IS. It's a very good lens although, as with the others, it needs to be stopped down to about f/8 for best results.

Not meaning to hijack the thread, but the lens is for sale (I'm in the UK) if anyone is interested :)
I've bought a selection of more specialised lenses to replace it and can't afford to keep all of them :(

[aznkid.com]

try the sigma 18-125mm

[mikesd]

I have had both the Tamron and Canon and preferred the 28-135. Although both are really good,the usm, IS and longer range were the reasons. By the way the IS goes a long way in making up the difference in low light shooting.

[beech1]

The canon hands down. The IS is worth it's weight in gold. I use it as my main lens for weddings. I do have the 28-70 L lens and it stays in my bag.

Don

[mikesd]

Thats nice to hear Don, I switched from the Tamron to the 28-135 for wedding use but havn't had a chance to try it out yet.

[MrChad]

try the sigma 18-125mm

Ditto, I love this lens...for $260 what's not to love!!!
I've used other 28-200mm zooms and this thing is fantastic blows the others away.
This lens is as sharp if not sharper then my Canon 28-105mm.

[ijohnson]

I'd like to say that I don't like the Canon version but it finds its way on to my camera all the time, despite the three far superior lenses that I own. The focal length is quite nice for walking around so if I don't want to bring my entire camera set-up, the 28-135 has worked out very well.

It works fine at and around f8 even though it is not as sharp as my L's. With a good flash attached to your camera it will work fine inside too, otherwise it is intolerably slow. I do a lot of work with kids though so the IS doesn't help me with that. Otherwise, with non-moving objects, the IS does great.

The focus is fast and quiet and the focus ring is easy to access. It really is a nice lens, though hardly dust-proof. I must say that despite the lack of a red-stripe and a telescoping zoom, it looks pretty hot too, especially if you buy the petal-type lens hood.

Hope that helps.