Canon 28-135 vs Sigma 28-200

Hello,

I am new to photography and currently own Canon EOS Elan 7e with 50

mm 1.4 lense, but I need something a little wider and for everyday

use, so I came to conclusion that this is my choices Canon EF 28-135

F3.5 - 4.0 lense and Sigma 28-200 F3.5 - 5.6 lense. Sigma has

advantages that its made in japan and longer zoom, canon has

advantage of USM motor and faster focusing but when I print pictures

from either of this lenses I really can't see much of a difference

could anybody share theyr expirence and tell me if Sigma is better

that Canon or vice versa.

 

Thanks a lot.

Iaroslav -- First off, let me make a few corrections to your post. The current Canon 28-135mm lens is F3.5 - 5.6 and has IS (Image Stabilization). This lens is made in Japan, too, so the location of assembly isn't much of an issue.

 

All that aside, both lenses will produce good results, especially when used in conjunction with good technique. The IS on the Canon lens can be handy if you ever find yourself in low-light situations. Like you said, the Sigma gives you more length.

 

One thing to watch out for is Sigma compatibility with Canon cameras. I'm not saying the Sigma is a bad lens, just that some Sigma lenses don't work with some Canon EOS camera bodies. I would suggest you search the archives for more information on this topic.

 

I own and use the Canon 28-135 IS lens and have been extremely pleased with it. I find it's a good compliment to a fast 50mm prime.

I assume you're referring to the Canon 28-135 f3.5-5.6IS. This lens is much better than any 28-200 zoom. The optical design is better, the IS is an asset as well. In general avoid the 28-200 or 28-300 zoom lenses. BTW the Canon lens is made in Japan, at least according to the text on the lens. See http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28200 for more info.

 

Just my 2c,

I am sorry people here is correction the lens I am considering is 28 - 105 mm and does not come with IS, I was also looking at 28-135mm with IS thats probably why I made this bad mistake, so the lens I am interested is made in Taiwan.

Sorry again ! and thanks or all replies.

I can't speak for the 28-105, but if you can go with the 28-135 you won't regret it. The lens is sharp, and the IS REALLY does work. My only gripe about it is the "plasticy" feel. On the other hand, that makes it light.

I'd get the Canon. Are you sure 28-105 is made in Taiwan? (Mine is made in Japan-it says on the lens.) I have mk II. The max aperture on that lens is 3.5-4.5.

My 28-105 (mark-I) is made in Japan. So are all the 28-105's I;ve seen. Unless you're talking about the newer 28-105/4-5.6 kit zoom.

If you are talking the 28-105, you will NOT find a better lens for the price. My daughter has one while I have the 28-135IS. The 28-135 is probably slightly better but not by much. I suugest you do a little search here and research all the comments made about the superwundermega zooms. You'll basically find that they all pretty much suck. Unless you have very low standards or want to turn your camera into a P&S.

There are three Canon 28-105's being sold today. The original 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a very good lens for the money. Certainly superior to the Sigma in question.

 

The two 28-105 f/4-5.6 vesions are cheap junk, but so is the Sigma 28-200. Other than the optical length, they probably compare fairly well from 28mm to 105mm.

For 199.00 at adorama and most online sources I have seen the 28-105 3.5/4.5 USMII is a little gem. Mine is great and gives stunning results. I first go mine in time to catch the last blooms of summer and the color, contrast and sharpness are remarkable. If you get it throw in the extra 20 for the lenshood. You wont be disappointed. It is made in JAPAN like most alot of great glass. I have considered picking the 24-85mm up to use on my Elan 7 and putting the 28-105 on my 630 for my wife to carry at weddings. With that said I am off to post my question

Do you really like the results from the Sigma? I've not tried it but I think that it should be nothing compared to your excellent 50mm 1.4. The Sigma would a great travel lens (for the range) but the Canon would be closer in terms of quality to the 50mm. Check out some other lenses too (Canon 24-85?). Cheers.

Especially 50 1.4!! The zooms might not get a fair bid at all! 28-105 is good but I always long for that realism that comes from 50 1.4, sigma mega-ranges will definitely dissappoint in this company. Even 24 2.8 leaves me aching for my 50.

About where the 28 -105 lens made, it is made in Taiwan, I checked and it is version Zoom Wide Angle-Tele 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 EF USM I think it is the letest from canon. About if I like Sigma I cannot complain so far it is loud but picture quality seems fine and auto focus is pretty fast to(not that I use it a lot). And I bought this lens from B&H I mean canon, I will also check Adorama maybe they have Japan version.

It does not matter at all where a lens is made. Do you think Canon does not make sure their quality standards are kept at all their production sites?<p>Optically, the EF 28-105mm f:3.5-4.5 USM is remarkably good. It's also remarkably durable mechanically: I've seen one that had been to hell and back several times, and it was like new.<p>For a review of it, <a href="http://www.photo.net/canon/28-105">click here</a>.

Disclaimer: I used none of these lenses.

 

But....

 

My 50/1.8 was optically better than 70-200/4 L and 17-35/2.8 L zooms. I thus very much doubt if any lens other than a Canon prime or an L zoom will match the performance of your 50/1.4.