24-85mm Vs. 28-105mm

Hi,

 

My friend wants to buy a Rebel film camera. He asked me for

opinion. I have 28-105mm/f3.5 and like it very much but not sure if

24-85mm/f3.5 is better. Price wise, the gap is about $100 between

them. Anyway, does anyboy here have made comparison between them?

If so, what is the result?

 

Thanks,

 

Dennis

I own both of them and they're about the same optically. That is, either one can make excellent 8 x 12 or 11 x 14 prints if you stop down a bit. Both have lots of distortion at the short end, especially closeups, and are sharper at the short end than the long. The 24-85 has less flare than the 28-105 when shooting blazing Hawaiian sunsets. Wide zooms are more difficult to design and manufacture, hence the $100 premium for the 24-85. I prefer the extra 4mm at the wide end over extra reach.

<P>If you're looking for a good time on a Friday night, read my review of both zooms:</P><P><A HREF="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm" TARGET="_blank">Canon Normal Zooms</A></P>

If he's a beginner and if that's the only lens he has, he'll benefit way more from the 4mm

at the shorter end than from the 20mm at the longer one.

I have both - this is the older version (f3.5 - f4.5) of the 28-105, about 10 years old.

 

I definitely prefer the 24-85. I think from some informal tests I've made (on a D60, not a

film camera) that it's a bit sharper, and that seems to be confirmed by various other tests

I've seen. I do like the extra 4mm at the wide end. I don't find that the distortion that

Puppy Face refers to is any problem. And in my case, I'm not sure that the long end is

significantly worse than the wide end.

 

The 24-85 is my general 'walking around' lens. I've hardly used the 28-105 since I got the

24-85.

"I don't find that the distortion that Puppy Face refers to is any problem. "

 

Actually the distortion doesn't bother me most of the time, e.g., landscapes, floral or people shots are fine. However, if you shoot closeups of anything with straight lines, e.g., doorway details, both lenses exhibit massive barrel distortion. The 24-85 is slightly worse in this respect. I also own an EF 28-135 IS USM and it has the same problem. With large prints ocean horizons are slightly curved. Incidentally, the EF 28-135 IS USM is the most flare prone of the three.

This is a good <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/">read</a>.<p>--

I have the 28-105, and personally find the distortion below (say) 32mm unacceptable. I don't have the 24-85.

 

Frankly, I would still go for the 28-105 based upon cost. And use the difference to buy a 50/1.8.

I think Jim has a good idea!

Dennis:

 

How about a 35-85 ($60 new) and a used 50mm 1.8 MK-I (~$130 ebay). The 50mm yields quality result and the 35-85 should provide shooting flexability. This combo with also allow a upgrade path later-on (e.g. keep the 50 & toss the 35-85).

Thanks everybody for the useful suggestion!

Yes, he is a beginner. That's why I suggested him to go for rebel.

I will refer this post to him and let him make the final decision.

 

Thanks again!

 

Dennis

I have the Canon 28-105mm/f3.5-4.5 which I bought for about $100 used. It is fine for general photos, including enlargements to 10" by 12" if the film is not too coarse grained. T-max 100 and color films with ISO 200 or less seem to give nice results.

 

I just bought the Canon 24-85mm, also used, because I wanted the extra 4mm for foreground coverage. No film back yet so I can't compare results.

 

However, I have a question about the scale on the barrel of the lense. In the usual place for the aperature scale there is instead a focal length scale. Does this mean that you set hyperfocal focus by placing the infinity sign opposite the focal length?

 

Many thanks,

Jay