Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II equivalent for Digital?

Hey,

 

I've been looking around for a new/upgrade to my current Sigma 18-125mm. (I have

dropped this lens twice, so it has some problems, not to mention the image

quality wasn't the "best", though not too bad.

 

I have the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II (not the new junkie version). I loved

this lens when I shot with my film Canon. It gave the perfect focal range (for a

walk-around lens), gave great quality pics, and was priced in my budget

$230-250. But the 28mm, makes it too long for a general walk-around lens, on my

digital.

 

So, basically, I wish there was a digital version of this lens, meaning the

focal length started at 18mm. (like a 18-65mm, for about $250-300).

 

Currently, I'm stuck between the Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 17-70. Both are pretty

decent lenses, the Tamron being the best for image quality and speed (f/2.8

across the zoom range. The Sigma is 2.8 at the widest range, and 4.5 at long.

 

I have looked at the Canon 17-85, though the price ($530-$550) and the f/4-5.6,

kills it as an option, for me. Though, USM and IS are nice, they are not big

advantages, for me personally.

 

You guys think Canon might eventually release a $200-$300 equivalent to the

Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM (something like a 18-65mm, in the same price range).

I've heard the quote numerous times, "you can't have it all, price, quality,

speed." (or something like that?) But, the Canon 28-105 USM II, was very close

to it, for me.

 

(I know the 17-40 is nice, but price and focal range, don't do it for me)

 

Is there any lens I'm missing?

 

Not sure if have any valid points or questions. Basically, just wanted a lens

recommendation, if there are any lenses that I have not noticed. And whether

Canon would eventually release a lens similar to the 28-105, with a digital

equivalent focal length? (with the same price range)

 

Thanks,

Amol

>> Currently, I'm stuck between the Tamron 17-50, and Sigma 17-70. Both are pretty decent lenses, the Tamron being the best for image quality and speed

 

 

I'd go for the Tamron 17-50 for image quality and speed.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

"You guys think Canon might eventually release a $200-$300 equivalent to the Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM "

 

Canon has demonstrated over the past few years that it has forgotten how to make lenses in this price range. Its new offerings are either cheap kit stuff to hook the new entrants, or uber premium stuff aimed at the same people who buy $3500 home expresso makers.

 

Even if they do release a $200-$300 lens you can expect it to cost $400-$500.

The nearest thing is the EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM. It was released with the EOS IX (APS). It acts

like aprox a 35-105 on a 1.6x crop body. I liked it on my 10D but am not a wide fan.

Canon learned their lesson well back when they released the original auto focus line of cameras by dumping most of the affordable fixed focal lengths for the more profitable and popular zoom line and the ultra expensive L series.Digital has taken this to the extreme,L series or cheap low end consumer grade lenses.What they really would like to see are for everyone to go out and buy high end full size sensor bodies for $3000 with $1400 L series zoom attached in order to take nice snap shots of the kids playing in the back yard.

Unfortunately, Canon does not currently make the lens you want, which is a decent, reasonably priced, mid consumer grade (with a ring USM) standard zoom lens for 1.6x crop body. Nikon makes 2 such lenses, which has helped enhance D80 sales to new DSLR photographers. Probably the closest thing would be the Sigma 17-70, which seems to be well regarded. I would probably buy the Tamron and live with the shorter range, but Canon should have a reasonable $300 option available.

I had the same problem (and the same lens) when I switched from an Elan II to a Rebel XT two years ago. My original choice was the Sigma 18-125, but I couldn't find a brick-and-mortar store that carried it anywhere in metropolitan Los Angeles. I didn't trust Sigma's quality control enough to order it from B&H or Adorama.

 

I ended up keeping that 28-105, and supplementing it with a Tokina 12-24 because I definitely use the wide angle. It's not a convenient solution, since I change lenses a lot more often than I'd like to. But even now it's the most practical and cost-effective approach for what I need.

 

About a year later I replaced the 28-105 with a Canon 28-135IS. The longer tele end is quite helpful, as is the image stabilization. I now have a complete range of focal lengths in two lenses, that fits with the camera into a compact bag for travel. It's not the most convenient with all the lens changes, but it's the closest I could find to meeting my needs. Canon touts the 17-85 as the APS-C equivalent of the 28-135, but I find it too expensive and not long enough.

Hey guys,

 

Thanks for the comments.

 

I am favoring the Tamron because of the 2.8. Though, I'm also thinking, if I go with the Sigma, I could probably manage low-light shooting at the f4.5 if I bump the ISO to 800. Though, this is not ideal, it will still allow for more zoom range than the 17-50. I don't know, there are pros & cons for both lenses.

 

Ted, I actually ordered my Sigma 18-125 online. And luckily got a "good" one. Most of the pics in my portfolio are with the 18-125, it makes a great travel lens. I'm actually quite impressed with the 18-125, overall, it works pretty well, even considering the number of times I have dropped it!

 

I had thought about keeping my 28-105 and getting a 12-24 (or something similar), but as Ted points out this will require multiple lens changes for shooting one scene/situation. Though, I have little problem changing lenses, it is not ideal for travel, or for a "walk-around" lens. Or for times when I feel like taking the camera in a small bag "just-in-case", it means I will have to take two lenses, kinda defeats the purpose. Right now, I can put the camera in my backpack or messenger bag, with the 18-125, and I am good/ready for most situations.

 

Too bad Canon has not opted to make such a lens. And even if they made one for $400-500, I would probably buy it, if it had a 3.5-4.5 aperture range. Why did they make the 17-85 4-5.6, instead of 3.5-4.5? Or even if it was similar to the Sigma, with a 2.8-4.5 range, that would have been better. As is, the Sigma 17-70 is less expensive ($325-350) than any of the options (tamron, canon), and according to reviews, still gives pretty good image quality.

 

If I buy a Tamron 17-50, or Sigma 17-70. I'll probably have to sell my 28-105, just for budget reasons. This is also another reason, I can't buy a 12-24 to complement my 28-105. Because most 12-24 are around $300-400, meaning I'll have sell something, and I'm not sure anyone would want to buy a half-working Sigma 18-125.

 

Decisions-Decisions

 

Thanks,

 

Amol

<cite>though the price ($530-$550) and the f/4-5.6, kills it as an option, for me</cite>

 

<p>I can see the price issue. Speed, though? That's only half a stop. Sure, faster is better, but such a small difference ought not to be a killer.</p>

 

<p>I agree: Canon really ought to come out with an EF-S equivalent to this lens. But so far, at least, they haven't, and past experience with EF-S lenses suggests that Canon charges a price premium (even though the materials costs are <em>lower</em>).</p>

 

<p>The 17-85 is the EF-S equivalent of the 28-135: virtually identical range, optics above average for a consumer zoom, quick focusing and FT-M due to ring USM. And the speed is very similar: 4-5.6 for the 17-85, 3.5-5.6 for the 28-135.</p>

 

<p>I've resigned myself to needing two lenses as my minimal kit with my 20D. Currently, that's the 17-40/4L USM plus my old 28-135 (which was my most used lens on film, and could serve as the only lens if I had to take only a minimal kit), though at some point I'll replace the 28-135 with the 24-105 and, if I stick with 1.6-crop, the 17-40 with the 17-55. So even with a bigger budget than yours, it could be argued that there's no ideal solution, though the 17-55 would be great if you could live with its 88-equivalent long end.</p>

Steve,

 

I see you point about half-stop differences. At the wide end 3.5 versus 4.0, is half-stop. Though, for clarification, isn't 4.5 to 5.6 one-stop difference. So, on the 17-85, at what focal length, does the lens go from 4.5 to 5.6, is at or below 70mm.

 

Of course, compared to the Tamron 17-50, the constant 2.8 is pretty significant. A 2.8 at 50mm, is a plus. What is the max aperture of the 17-85 at 50mm?

 

The Simga 17-70 is:

 

17mm f/2.8

 

24mm f/3.2

 

40mm f/4

 

70mm f4.5

 

 

Overall, the price is one of the major factors. But you make a good point about the half-stop. I guess, on either the Canon 17-85 or Sigma 17-70, I can boost the ISO, if I needed to.

f/3.5 vs. f/4 is about a third of a stop difference. Also, f/4.5 vs. f/5.6 is about two thirds stop difference.

I don't have any way of avoiding carrying two lenses, since I like wide-angle and use the 12-24 quite frequently. I don't think something like the Sigma 18-125 by itself would fill the bill for me (although it would let me change lenses less often). A thoughtful approach minimizes lens changes. At a given location, I shoot first with one lens and then change to the other.

 

<p>The Rebel XT and the two lenses fit quite comfortably in a smallish <a href="http://www.tamrac.com/5202.htm">Tamrac Explorer 2</a> bag, so carrying them isn't much of a problem. Even when I shot film, a long-extinct Canon 22-55 supplemented the 28-105, so I had two lenses even then. Before that I also carried a bulky 1989-vintage 70-210 in a larger bag. My current two-lens kit covers the equivalent of 19-210mm (I don't miss the 4mm gap between my two lenses). But I won't carry more than two lenses.