24/28 to whatever zooms

OK, I can NOT afford the 28-70 or 24-70 F2.8L canon zoom. I would

like to buy somthing in that range that's better than the rebel kit

lens, my choices are

 

28-135 IS canon 395

24-85 3.5-4.5 310

 

28-70/2.8 Ex ASP DX Sigma 329

24-70/2.8 Sigma 409 (is it a poor performer)

 

28-80/2.8 Tokina 499

 

28-75/2.8 XR Di Tamron 399

 

Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a review comparing all of

them. I found reviews saying the 28-135 is better than the 24-85

canon on photo.net, and individual reviews on pop photo for what its

worth.

 

Your opinions please, I am sure I am not the first person to go thru

this. I am currently leaning toward the 28-135 IS or the Tamron.

 

BTW I have a canon 10D and a film rebel for those wide landscap

shots with a 17-40F4L also plan on getting the 50F1.4 .

 

Thanks,

Gerry

From your lens list, I would only consider EF28-135mmIS and EF24-85mm.

I have 28-135mm lens and I think it is a very good lens in its category. It performs very well if you use smaller apertures, yes it is a slow lens but this can be compensated with its IS feature. If I take only one lens for travel, this is it. It surprised me many times with quality pictures. Since you already have 17-40mm lens, there is no point considering 24-85mm lens.

So 28-135mm togather with 17-40mm, you are covered with most of the photographing situations.

Gerry,

 

Did you check out Fred Miranda's website (www.fredmiranda.com)? He has a review section of lenses, with user feedbacks and ratings.

Actually, I have the 17-40 and the 24-85. Yes, thereis more overlap thanwith the 28-

zooms, but not annoyingly so.

 

I'm a big fan of the 24-85; good quality, well built, small size. Excellent lens. I also have

the 28-105 f3.5-4.5, and I hardly ever use it any more. I think the choice in this zoom

range is between the 24-85 and the 28-135 IS.

I have owned the 28-135 IS (now replaced by the 24-70L) and it's a very good lens! I would go for that one for its optical performance and the added bonus of IS.

I bought the 24-85 as the first lens for my 10D, for no better reasons than that it was reasonably priced and prominently featured in all the 10D promotional images.

 

Now that I have the 17-40, a 50 and the 70-200 f/4, I hardly use the 24-85 any more. I'd buy an f/4L equivalent of the 24-70 in a heartbeat if Canon made one, although I'd prefer it to have a fixed physical length and a range of 28-80mm.

 

That said, if I had it to do over again, I'd buy the 28-135 IS over the 24-85.

Check out the canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM - $210.

This is a much better lens than the 24-85 and a maybe a little better quality than the 28-135. But the 28-135 does give you IS which might be worth the extra $100 and more useful since your 135 will be working at the 220 with 1.6 factor for your 10D.

 

A quick note - you will quickly outgrow this lens once you start using the 50F1.4 Lens. The speed/quality does matter especially when you want to throw the background out of focus, like i prefer to do in pictures where the background is very cluttered (or when you want sharp pictures to capture that clutter!!!)

 

I really cant say much about the non canon lenses.

I'd go for the 28-135 IS. 24-85 as a second choice, assuming that you exclude the 28-105/3.5-4.5.

 

I'm with Jon, I'd love a 35-80/4L to go with the 17-40 and 70-200.

Gerry,

 

You should seriously consider the Tamron as well. The build is good, the optics will blow you away and with a constant f2.8, you will be able to handhold more shots and also create more blurred backgrounds. The AF is not as fast as the Canon L-series (what is ??), but this Tamron is a very small and light lens with great fast optics.

 

But as Sravan said, if you get the Canon 50/1.4, the quality, build, AF, and the f1.4 will really spoil you and you will not be happy with slow lenses anymore !

 

All the best !

 

Wee-Ming

Sravan, the 50mm primes are pretty sweet, but they sure don't have IS.

 

I reach for the 28-135 IS much more than any of my primes.

Gerry:

 

Get a 70-200 f4L at $550 (less if it is used)

Nothing wrong with your 18-55 EFS, if you stop it down to below to f5.6 and below.

To cover low light indoor, get the 35mm f2 prime ($210).

These will give you a quality 18-200mm range on a budget.

Buy a low cost Tamron 1.4X TC later when your wallet recovers (18-280 range now).

 

Tommy Lee

<p> The Canon 28-135 has two traits which I lust for: USM and IS. However, optical performance is more important to me and from what I hear, the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is the best of this bunch. Thus, I'd probably buy it if I were to decide one from this group.<p>

<p> I - personally - would not buy any Sigma lens. I heard too many horror stories on <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibilitythirdparty">compatibility problems</a>. Also search this site. You'll find plenty of such complaints. <p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

Some tests Take a look at this link:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm

 

The graphics in this page show that optically the 24-85 is marginally better, but the

comments go for the 28-135 as "overall best performer", as it is well constructed and has

IS.

 

For me, the most important result is that primes (24, 50, 85 tested) beat the zooms

clearly, allow greater apertures and produce no distortions.

 

On the other hand, the Canon 28-135 it's not a 2.8

 

A recent review (FV magazine) states the following 0-100 performance values including

contrast, distorsion, sharpness:

 

2.8 zooms:

Canon EF 24 ? 70 L USM --- 80

Canon EF 28 ? 70 L USM --- 77

Minolta AF 28 ? 70 G --- 75

Nikon AF S 28 ? 70 D IF ED --- 77

Pentax SMC FA 28 ? 70 AL --- 74

Sigma EX 24 ? 70 Asph DG DF --- 73

Sigma EX 28 ? 70 Asph DF --- 76

Tamron 28 ? 75 Di XR LD Asph --- 78

 

>2.8 Canon zooms

Canon EF 3.5 ? 4.5? ?24 ? 85 mm USM --- 67

Canon EF 4 ? 5.6? ?28 ? 90 mm USM --- 69

Canon EF II 3.5 ? 4.5? ?28 ? 105 mm USM --- 62

Canon EF 3.5 ? 5.6? ?28 ? 135 mm USM IS? --- 69

 

So, the Tamron seems to be the best option against the L zooms, other than primes

Wait - wait - Tommy hit the nail on the head!

 

If you have a 17-40/4L, and are planning on a 50/1.4, then I suggest that you just do not need a 28-xx zoom.

 

What about a 70-200/4L? You do not really need to cover every mm of the focal range.

 

As for cost, if get a 50/1.8 instead of the 50/1.4, then you will have the $575 needed for the 70-200/4L.

 

BTW: the 70-200/4L is faster than the 28-xx zooms.

Didn't think about getting a 70-200F4L but probably should, it certainly is no slouch optically. A lot of pro's locally use it vs the 2.8/IS just because it's light/cheap/great performer optically.

 

Sounds like it's a 50F1.4 and 70-200F4L.

 

Thanks,

Gerry

Can't tell this is a Canon forum. Of the lenses listed by Gerry, the Tamron is the best by a margin in terms of image quality. If you get a good copy it is very useable wide open and once stopped down a tad is sharp and gives the 24-70L a run for it's money. It does have a slight yellowish cast, which is easily fixed in PS. For the price it is great value. 95% of the 24-70L in image quality 75% in build quality and half the weight.

 

My next choice would be the 28-135 IS just for the IS.

Are you really sure about zooms?

<br>

This month i have traveled to Turkey with my new 24/2.8 and a plain old 24-85 USM; however soon noticed than i had completely NO NEED in any other focal length than 24mm except for 70-200 range provided by 70-200/4L. For a price of 28-135IS you can afford both 24/2.8 and 35/2, or even to add here 50/1.8mkII.