Canon lens advice

Joined: 10 Jun 2007 Posts: 6 Location: Greenville, SC

I am in need of a good Canon mid range lens, and am kind of torn between a couple of lenses: Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM or Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Also, I am curious about anyone's thoughts on the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8IS USM.

I currently use a Canon 350D with the kit lens. I also have a Canon 70-300 IS USM.

Posted: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:04 am

cazeebbb wrote:

I am in need of a good Canon mid range lens, and am kind of torn between a couple of lenses: Canon EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM or Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Also, I am curious about anyone's thoughts on the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8IS USM.

I currently use a Canon 350D with the kit lens. I also have a Canon 70-300 IS USM.

I've said this before in http://www.phototakers.com/forum/ftopic69937.html but I'll say it again...

I've just purchased the Sigma 24-60mm f/2.8 EX lens which received excellent reviews. I've yet to download the pictures I taken with it so far but you're welcome to a copy of a picture or two taken with this lens.

Cheers
Mark

Joined: 13 Mar 2005 Posts: 67

I have the 28-105 usm, pretty happy with it, It stays on my camera most of the time. i have the version II of the lens.

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:30 pm

The 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM II is a really fantastic lens for the money. It's about as sharp and colourful as an L lens (the lens lineup for professionals, insane amateurs, and yuppies) in most respects - I've confused it with shots out of my 70-200mm f/4L from time to time.

A legendary third party lens, the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, is another option you should consider instead - it's got the faster f/2.8 and is probably even better optically than the canon 28-1XX consumer zooms. I've seen it favourably compared to Canon's flagship 24-70 f/2.8L in terms of optical performance, but of course it's a fraction of the price.

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS is also supposed to be excellent, but of course it's a bit pricey. If you can afford it, and can justify it, by all means go for it. The alternative would be the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 - cheaper and supposedly pretty sharp. The last lens you might consider in this range would be canon's 17-40 f/4L. Sharp as razors, covers full frame or 35mm film if you ever go that route, but it does have a bit of barrel distortion. This never bothers me; I use it all the time.

Check photozone.de for lens ratings. They're pretty good. When you're looking at the sample images though remember that they use RSE raw converter which applies an awful lot of sharpening.

Still, I think their conclusions are generally pretty accurate.

Joined: 05 Aug 2005 Posts: 545 Location: KS - USA

I'll vote for the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

Got one, and it's sharp. It would be nicer to have a bit more "length", but it's still a fantastic lens for the money.