Is 28-15mm a good multi-purpose lens?

[SAH20Sheila]

Is the
http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/spacer.gif http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/spacer.gifCanon EF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM Lens a good multi-purpose lens to get for my 10D?:confused:

-SAH20SHEILA

[SkipD]

You might find the short end a little long. It's equivalent to a 44.8mm lens on a 35mm body. If all you want is normal-to-telephoto, it should work just fine.

[SAH20Sheila]

I was just lookin for a lens in between a sigma 12-24mm and a canon 75-300mm.

-SAH20SHEILA

[Bob_A]

Is the
http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/spacer.gif http://pics.ebaystatic.com/aw/pics/spacer.gifCanon EF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM Lens a good multi-purpose lens to get for my 10D?:confused:

-SAH20SHEILA

I have the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM and it is a decent lens to learn with. Image quality is very good from f8 to f11, and average to poor for the rest of the range. One note though, the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is a cheaper version which does not have close to the same quality as the "II" version.

The MTF chart for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM is here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442

The MTF chart for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7516


Regards,


Bob

[Tom W]

I have the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM and it is a decent lens to learn with. Image quality is very good from f8 to f11, and average to poor for the rest of the range. One note though, the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is a cheaper version which does not have close to the same quality as the "II" version.

The MTF chart for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II USM is here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442

The MTF chart for the 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is here:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7516


Regards,


Bob

The second lens is not the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, but rather the 28-105 f/4-5.6. It has a micro-USM motor as opposed to the ring-type USM of the f/3.5-4.5 lens.

I still have my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens, even though I've got some L glass in that range. It is a good zoom, though it goes soft wide open. As stated earlier, the 28 mm end won't be very wide on the 1.6X sensor. But it does provide a very good image for a reasonable price.

[Bob_A]

The second lens is not the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM, but rather the 28-105 f/4-5.6. It has a micro-USM motor as opposed to the ring-type USM of the f/3.5-4.5 lens.

I still have my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens, even though I've got some L glass in that range. It is a good zoom, though it goes soft wide open. As stated earlier, the 28 mm end won't be very wide on the 1.6X sensor. But it does provide a very good image for a reasonable price.

You are correct of course! :D

[ddelallata]

I have one that I'm thinking about selling. I have the optional Canon hood too. Someone here on the boar sold one for 160 dlls earlier this week. SO I'm thinking that for 185 dlls I'd be willing to sell it with the hood and UV filter. Let me know if you are interested.

[EricKonieczny]

I have the USM II version and it was my first lens, and I use it still as my primary walk around lens. I always use the hood on it.

For the price, it does a good job.

Here are some of my pictures with it.

http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=24
http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=26

[Raj]

You may to check tamron 28-75 f2.8 if you need to fill the gap from 24-75 mm only. It is comparatively cheap & has very decent reviews

[Bob_A]

I have the USM II version and it was my first lens, and I use it still as my primary walk around lens. I always use the hood on it.

For the price, it does a good job.

Here are some of my pictures with it.

http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=24
http://www.ekreating.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=26

I'd have to agree with you. The II USM version is a pretty decent lens for the price, and as long as you aren't doing any major cropping or enlarging over 5x7 the lack of sharpness below f8 probably wouldn't be noticeable for most. Between f8 and f11 this lens is actually pretty sharp.



Bob

[SAH20Sheila]

The input from this chat has been very informative. I am new to photography so its great to hear other opinions. I haven't heard much about the tamron, but from what I've picked up on, it doesn't seem to compare to sigma or canon. Is this a correct assumption?

-SAH20SHEILA

[Andy_T]

I haven't heard much about the tamron, but from what I've picked up on, it doesn't seem to compare to sigma or canon. Is this a correct assumption?


Sheila,

As I mentioned in your other thread, this is not a correct assumption :wink:

It's a great lens that is sharper (tack sharp from f/4.0 on, very usable at f/3.2) and faster (constant f/2.8 ) than the 28-135 IS for about 350 $ (so I consider it's also a bit cheaper).

The difference between a lens that is tack sharp at f/4.0 and a lens that only gives you this quality at f/8.0 is considerable ... it could mean the difference between a lens you can only use in broad daylight and an allround lens.

Also take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74581)!

Best regards,
Andy

[Nightcrawler]

The difference between a lens that is tack sharp at f/4.0 and a lens that only gives you this quality at f/8.0 is considerable ... it could mean the difference between a lens you can only use in broad daylight and an allround lens.


Subject movement and bokeh aside, keep in mind that the lens does have IS which can account for the two stop difference.

[Nightcrawler]

Nevermind, I was thinking of the 28-135 IS.

[Andy_T]

I agree.

I should have added that the ability to get shallow DOF with pleasant bokeh is very important for me in a lens.
IS doesn't help you there, unfortunately.
Most of my photography (unless it's landscapes) is done in the f/4.0 - f/5.6 range.

Best regards,
Andy