Canon 28-105mm

[sid]

After reading a bunch of threads here, I've narrowed my lens purchase to the Canon 28-105. But, I'm having trouble deciding whether I want the f4-5.6 or the f3.5-4.5. There's $100 difference between the two and I'd appreciate opinions on whether it's worth spending the additional money. (The only lens I have so far is the kit lens 18-55mm).
I plan to take pictures mostly outdoors, mostly landscape and perhaps (though rarely) some pictures on the race track. I know that a 200mm or longer lens will serve me better on the track, but I cant justify the cost right now, seeing as I wont be doing that more than one or twice a year.
Also, how does the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4 compare ? I would prefer the Canon but Sigma seems to be a contender, although I dont know about the picture quality.
Thanks !
-Sid

[Nightcrawler]

Look here for lens ratings - http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

The Sigma lens you mention gets a sub-average rating. The 3.5-4.5 is a nicer lens than the 4-5.6. It is more solidly built and it also has a really fast USM w/ FTM .

[chtgrubbs]

The f/3.5-4.5 is optically superior to the other Canon. I have used it for several year along side the 28-80L lens and have been very impressed with its quality.

[ron chappel]

I've heard some reports on that sigma.It's really average aparently.

The 28-105/3.5-4.5 is genuinely a good lens,i can highly recommend it -it's better than the kit lens to help you put it into perspective
The cheaper f4-5.6 version i havent used but i've seen some pics taken with one.Not very good at all :( It looks abit worse than the kit lens

Here's a thought-why not get a telezoom instead of a 28-105?
As you have the kit lens there's little point in getting another lens which overlaps it by so much(unless you are doing all this to just get a better lens than the kit lens of course)

But if you like the kit lens i'd suggest the 80-200 II (make sure it's the II version!)
This particular model is a real gem of a cheap kit lens. It's amazingly sharp,tiny ,has good contrast and very fast focus
The gap between the kit lens and this one is allmost irelevant-you'll likely never notice it :)
Here are some example pics i've got from this lens
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20a.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20b.html

The other option i'd recommend is the canon 75-300. It's not as consistantly sharp as the 80-200 ,it gets soft towards the 300mm end.
That said it's a decent value for money 300mm zoom
Here are some examples
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

[sid]

Here's a thought-why not get a telezoom instead of a 28-105?
....
But if you like the kit lens i'd suggest the 80-200 II (make sure it's the II version!)
This particular model is a real gem of a cheap kit lens. It's amazingly sharp,tiny ,has good contrast and very fast focus
...
The other option i'd recommend is the canon 75-300.
Well, looks like the Sigma is definitely out.
Ron: Both the lenses you recommended have apertures f4.5-5.6. I'm a little concerned about how this will affect the usefulness of the lens in low light situations. The 80-200 II seems to be an attractive option. I'm happy with the kit lens right, but thats probably because I havent a better lens yet. ;)
And last question for you Ron: With the telezooms you recommended, how often do you find yourself changing lenses ? Can you use the 80-200 as a walkaround lens ?
I really appreciate all the comments ! :)

[down_shift13]

if your looking for something longer, why not check out the 70-210mm f3.5-4.5, its an older version, you can find one used online. its the same build as the 28-105mm with USM and FTM the only problem is the zoom creep when you leave the camera hanging on your shoulder. here's a photo i took using this lens.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58745

[Jim_T]

I've got the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It gets average reviews, but I find it's a great little general purpose walk around lens.. It's light and has a fast and quiet autofocus. It also looks cool with the optional lens hood... :) I use mine a lot.

I haven't tried the slower version of the lens, but for a general purpose lens, it's better to have a wider aperture.. It makes it a touch more versatile..

Also.. 105mm doesn't give you a lot of 'reach', but you can always buy something longer for that :)

[MrChad]

I own the 28-105mm f4-5.6 lens, skip this at all costs.
This came as the kit lens for my Elan 7N, the pictures are OK from this lens better then the Rebel kit lens IMO...but the build quality is aweful! By all means purchase the f3.5-5.6 USM II version of this lens much-much better from a build stand point.

[SHiKO]

I've got the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. It gets average reviews, but I find it's a great little general purpose walk around lens.. It's light and has a fast and quiet autofocus. It also looks cool with the optional lens hood... :) I use mine a lot.

I haven't tried the slower version of the lens, but for a general purpose lens, it's better to have a wider aperture.. It makes it a touch more versatile..

Also.. 105mm doesn't give you a lot of 'reach', but you can always buy something longer for that :)

I got the same lens too, and agree with all...

[SHiKO]

I've heard some reports on that sigma.It's really average aparently.

But if you like the kit lens i'd suggest the 80-200 II (make sure it's the II version!)
This particular model is a real gem of a cheap kit lens. It's amazingly sharp,tiny ,has good contrast and very fast focus
The gap between the kit lens and this one is allmost irelevant-you'll likely never notice it :)
Here are some example pics i've got from this lens
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20a.html
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/pages/80-200II%20b.html

The other option i'd recommend is the canon 75-300. It's not as consistantly sharp as the 80-200 ,it gets soft towards the 300mm end.
That said it's a decent value for money 300mm zoom
Here are some examples
http://members.dodo.net.au/~l8r_ron/

you photos are very sharp, impressed me alot.
BUT, in the same price you can get the SIGMA 70-300 APO2 (not DL) = less then 200$ new, and awesome pictures !

[Jack W.]

I also have the EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. When I first ordered it, the store called me to let me know it wasn't in stock, but they had the cheaper one. They sent it to me to try, I tried it for about 5 minutes, sent it back and waited for the better lens.
The EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a fine lens.

[ron chappel]

you photos are very sharp, impressed me alot.
BUT, in the same price you can get the SIGMA 70-300 APO2 (not DL) = less then 200$ new, and awesome pictures !

Yes that sigma model is very good- maybe equal best (with the canon 100-300 usm) of the consumer telezooms.

At $210 it is a good buy-
but the canon 80-200 II is only $110,that's why i was recommending it

[ron chappel]

.... Both the lenses you recommended have apertures f4.5-5.6. I'm a little concerned about how this will affect the usefulness of the lens in low light situations.... Can you use the 80-200 as a walkaround lens ?

Yes all telezooms have such apertures,it's a compromise one has to make unless you go for the pro zooms ($600 +++):(

No,if you were to get a telezoom it would be used with the kit lens-you'd have to carry them both.
The 28-105/3.5-4.5 is the best option for a good single lens kit

[txdude35]

I've been looking at the 28-105 as well, but have been thinking about kicking in the extra cash for the 28-135 IS- any opinions on that one?

[SHiKO]

Yes that sigma model is very good- maybe equal best (with the canon 100-300 usm) of the consumer telezooms.

At $210 it is a good buy-
but the canon 80-200 II is only $110,that's why i was recommending it

more like 137$ (not 210$)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3875796220&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

:) :)

[flyfisher]

I aslo have the 28-105 3.5/4.5 and use it as a walk arround and it is great for this , I have also used it for weddings and have never had any problems it gives nice sharp photos.

[ron chappel]

I've been looking at the 28-105 as well, but have been thinking about kicking in the extra cash for the 28-135 IS- any opinions on that one?

The 28-135 IS is a good lens.A touch better than the 28-105/3.5-4.5 plus it has the image stabilization.
The bad thing is the price

Do a search on this forum and you'll find lots of recommendations and examples/comparisons with this lens:)

Also here is a well done comparison test-

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html


more like 137$ (not 210$)
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=3875796220&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT

:) :)

Yep- nice deal - but one can't compare prices that way

[txdude35]

Thanks, Ron. I've been thinking about the IS because I shoot my kid's band and choir concerts indoors, and of course flash is discouraged. $200 and a tripod sounds better right now than $400, tho.

[sid]

Anybody have experience with the Tamron 70-300mm LD Macro Autofocus lens :
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=TA703004MCAF&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=213159

[René Damkot]

Thanks, Ron. I've been thinking about the IS because I shoot my kid's band and choir concerts indoors, and of course flash is discouraged. $200 and a tripod sounds better right now than $400, tho.
Well, neither IS nor tripod will help you if you get below 1/15... The subject is moving too.... Why not get a 50mm/1.4 (or 1.8 ) and/or 100/2.0 (or 85/1.8 )? Much more suited for this line of work. And the 50/1.8 is practically for free....

[antaine]

I am in the same boat looking for lenses - but after a lot of internet research I am going for the Tamron 28-75 XR DI

I know its shorter the Canon's 105mm, but it has got excellent reviews on picture quality and a bright f2.8.

[Andy_T]

I second Antaines decision.

You might lose 30 mm on the long end, but these two lenses are in totally different categories.

The 350$ Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI blows away the Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 and the 28-135 IS as far as image quality is concerned. It features a constant 2.8 aperture and is very sharp from 3.5 onwards. The image quality of this lens is often compared with that of the $ 1200 Canon 24-70/2.8 L.

Granted, most examples of the lens are not as sharp as the 24-70/2.8 L wide open, and the build quality and autofocus speed clearly show that the lens is much cheaper, but when you stop down the Tamron 28-75/2.8 to f/3.5, most people will not be able to tell the two lenses apart from the photographs. This certainly can not be said about any of the other lenses mentioned, that you most likely will have to stop down to f/8 to get the same sharpness.

So ... if you plan to buy a telezoom anyway at a later stage (e.g. the great Canon 70-200/4.0 L), why not get a lens that you will not just like, but love?
I can tell you that from my experience ... it's on my camera about 95 % of the time.

Best regards,
Andy