28-105mm f/3.5-4.5?? Or should I wait...

I have a 300D with the 18-55mm kit lens. So far I've been able to get some decent images out of it. I ordered the 50mm f/1.8, which will be here soon... but I want everyone's advice on whether I should order the 28-105mm, or put the money toward a lens with range I don't already have (70-200mm f/4L or 100mm f/2.8 MACRO).

Would the 28-105mm be noticeably better than my kit lens, or would it be a waste? I've done tons of research on it, and everyone says it's a GREAT lens for the price, but something tells me my money would be better saved for something with less overlap.

-moore

It's wonderful, I love mine. If you don't have USM on the 18-55 I think it's a no brainer and you should get the 28-105 for that feature alone. If you do have USM on the 18-55 then it really comes down to how the image quality is on the 18-55. From what I've heard it should actually be quite good.

Nonetheless, I love my 28-105 and it is a fantastic lense that I couldn't recommend enough. My only complaint is some minor barrel distortion on the extreme wide end but it's not a huge deal.

Second lens I bought as a complete DSLR newbie was the 28-105 we're talking about. Of course, be careful to get the better f/3.5-4.5 version. Nice, sharp, had beautiful colors and left me with a lot of good memories. As mentioned by elTwitcho, It introduced me to the power and performance of true ring USM focusing and I was blown away. Can't live without USM these days.

The only problem was that this lens was never wide enough for me (28x1.6 on a 350D = 45mm). I use the 17mm (27mm equiv.) end of my lenses a whole lot, so I let this lens go.

But believe me, some days, I wish I had it back....... for its price - it is outstanding, superb value, if you can use its focal length range on your camera. Some lucky 300D owner somewhere is enjoying it now!

Of course if you can afford the 70-200 f/4L and use that focal length more, then that is an awesome, awesome lens too.

When I got my 35L I did a test of all my lenses that cover the 35mm FL. The 28-105 USM (which I paid $125 for used) gave my more expensive L zooms a run for their money! You can see for yourself here: http://www.bigredstudi​os.com/35.htm

My kit lens was never that good: http://www.bigredstudi​os.com/lens_comparison​s.htm

Having said that, I'd probably still keep the kit lens for the 18-28mm range that you'd be losing with the 28-105...

28-105 F3.5/4.5 is a great little lens, it's wide enough for me and I often use it in preference to my 17-40 as it's more versatile.

As others have said here, this is a lovely little lens - I've had it for nearly a year now (I bought it with my 20D instead of the 'kit' lens).
It produces sharp images with good contrast and is reasonably fast (f/3.5-4.5) - well worth the money IMHO.

I have just ordered a 24-105L IS this morning just to give me a little bit more range at the wide end without having to change to my 17-35. This was the only thing I found on the 20D's cropped sensor (like your 300D), but it all depends on what you shoot.
I do find the 105 end realy useful though so this is the main reason I went for the 24-105L, I was tempted by the 17-85 EF-S but its lack of telephoto reach and slow speed put me off, as well as the fact that it would not work on any future 5D/FF body I might buy

I use mine as a standard zoom on my 1D (acts like 35-130 on it) and have always been very happy with results. I do find it a bit long at the wide end on my 20D whre I tend to use the 17-40 instead.

The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM is one of the best consumer lenses canon has put out. Team it up with a canon 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM and you have the 2 best comsumer lenses canon has ever made, the 70-210 can only be had used but runs around $150 and is well worth it if you dont want to spend big bucks on "L" or "EX: lenses.

I went with this lens as opposed to the kit lens when I bought my 20D last week. If you look around, you can find some really decent prices on it if you arent looking to spend a whole lot of money right now. I saw a few go for $125-150ish in excellent shape, but didnt act fast enough, ended up grabbing mine for $175 shipped, which I think is still a very good value. I hope this lens is as much fun as I think its going to be, it should be arriving on my doorstep sometime in the next 2 hours, I'm gonna need a muscle relaxant to keep myself calm. Its my second lens ever, and first zoom!

If you got the 70-200 f4L or the macro, I'd bet you'd see a big difference in sharpness compared to the kit's sharpness. The 28-105 is not as sharp.
Their MTF charts can be viewed at photozone.de

The 28-105 was the first lens I bought for my 20D. Terrific lens for a reasonable price.
I still have it; makes a great walk around lens.
Jack

Bought the 28-105 way back in 1994 with my first EOS (A2e), great lens althiugh it doesn't see as much use as it used too due to cropping factor. Unfortunately, my A2e doesn't get used that much either - the 20d is so damned convenient - but when I look through that viewfinder again it's so much nicer !

Jim