confused about some lens

First of all I am no expert at understanding MTF charts.

I was looking at these two lens:

Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM
Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM

The 28-105 seems to get nothing but praise on here and Fred Miranda.

The 24-85 I don't seem to hear much about it on here.
On Fred Miranda reviews, it was rated lower and had only about half as many reviews as the 28-105.

But when I look at:

this review at photo zone

vs

the 28-105 review

the MTF Resolution Chart of the 24-85 seems to "blow" away the 28-105's??

Can someone enlighten me?

TIA

What are you looking to cover here focal length wise and how much is your budget?

Sorry, hit the post button before completing thought. If I was in the market for consumer glass I dont think would chose either one of these. there are better alternatives for same price or similar.

Dante King wrote in post #2035313
Sorry, hit the post button before completing thought. If I was in the market for consumer glass I dont think would chose either one of these. there are better alternatives for same price or similar.

Such as?

tamron 28-75 for one. 2.8 lens, 6 year warranty. SHARP!!! included hood. Great color and contrast. for one. could you tell how much is your budget? Not to pry but it would help.

Dante King wrote in post #2035346
tamron 28-75 for one. 2.8 lens, 6 year warranty. SHARP!!! included hood. Great color and contrast. for one. could you tell how much is your budget? Not to pry but it would help.

I actually had the Tamron and returned it.
I know it goes against everything I have read. But I just didn't like it, or maybe expected to much of it. It seemed heavy on my Rebel XT and not balanced. Thought I could use it in low light without flash like my 50 1.8, but couldn't I guess because it felt "heavy" and seemed to soft to shoot wide open. Believe me I am in no way trying to start an argument I know this lens is beloved and that is why I bought it, it just isn't for me. So I checked out the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM, it is shorter and lighter and even though it isn't as fast a lens, (really only one stop slower f4 up to 80mm), and it has USM so it focuses way faster than the Tamron and supposedly doesn't hunt as in low light, and an extra 30mm reach.

Since I would have to use flash inside with the Tamron anyway I figured this was a great option. Also it is about $75 less.

Like I said I'm not comparing to the Tamron to start an argument, just how the comparison effects me. So my real comparision is vs the 24-85 f3.5-4.5. I don't really need the extra 4mm on the wide end, I'm more concerned about sharpness.

Joe

If you were hell bent on one of these two, i would chose the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM just for focal length usefulness. I am a fan of fast glass not for low light shooting, as I usually pack 4 or more flashes or strobes with me, but for the creative DOF it affords. Aint nothing like USM baby!!

Dante King wrote in post #2035434
If you were hell bent on one of these two, i would chose the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM just for focal length usefulness. I am a fan of fast glass not for low light shooting, as I usually pack 4 or more flashes or strobes with me, but for the creative DOF it affords. Aint nothing like USM baby!!

Thanks for the replies. I'm not necessarily "hell bent" I am always open minded, as this is still very much a learning experience for me. I try to read up and check out all the reviews I can. The bigger problem is there is no where for me to walk into a camera shop and check alot of stuff out. All we have is Ritz camera around here.
When I was in Baltimore a I did try out the 28-105 and liked it, but like my original post stated, when I saw the MTF charts I wondered what is that all about, seeming that the 24-85 was much superior in my limited knowledge. But I agree I do like the extra reach of the 28-105.

MTF charts be damned!! If you like the lens and it fits your shooting style and has the sharpenss you are after, go enjoy it.

I don't think that the lenses you are thinking about are that much lighter than the Tamron.
I can tell you that they will be softer and slower, so it'll be harder to isolate your subject with a wide aperature.

Tee Why wrote in post #2035802
I don't think that the lenses you are thinking about are that much lighter than the Tamron.
I can tell you that they will be softer and slower, so it'll be harder to isolate your subject with a wide aperature.

I think it is about 6 onces lighter and an inch shorter.

It is really only one stop slower, which isn't that much considering I can't use the Tamron indoor without flash anyway.

Tee Why wrote in post #2035802
I don't think that the lenses you are thinking about are that much lighter than the Tamron.
Canon 28-105 weighs 369 grams = 13 ozs.
Tamron 28-75 weighs 511 grams = 18 ozs

I can tell you that they will be softer and slower, so it'll be harder to isolate your subject with a wide aperature.

Without a doubt. I own both of the above lens and only use the Canon when adverse weather conditions prevail, so as to not damage my beloved Tamron.
The only advantage I see is the USM on the Canon it is Q&Q (quick and quite).

I've owned both these lenses and I think they're fine consumer lenses. I've never used the Tamron (probably never will), and in the photographic circles I frequent they are well loved and used lenses.

Mark

I own the 28-105, but have replaced it with the lenses in my signature. It just wasn't suited to use on the 20D, at least after I had used it on film (wide angle was sorely lacking). It's a fine lens, I shot with it for more than a year almost exclusivly and got sharp 16x20 prints (film/silver prints) from it with 400ISO TMAX film.