IQ Clarification EF 28-105 II

IQ Clarification

I plan to get a Rebel XSI around Christmas. I have been researching lenses to go with it. However, one has to pay

attention to the dates of the reviews in relation to the wow-factor of the then new lens. That is why I am seeking

clarification on IQ.

Years ago (20 or so) I had an Olympus SLR and a 35-135 or so lens. I don’t remember exactly. The price of

developing film kept me from learning much about photography then. I currently use a Canon PowerShot A590IS. The

4x zoom is a 35-140 FF equivalent. Almost everything I want to shoot is within that range, otherwise I use the “foot

zoom.” However, I want larger than 4x6 prints of a lot of things and the digital image noise and pixel issues prevent

much larger than that.

What I know is that the kit EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS will not give me the focal length, in and of itself, that I want to

shoot. So, I seem to have two options. 1) I could get the kit lens plus one more, longer focal length lens or 2) one

zoom with a longer focal length instead of the kit lens.

Given the 1.6x crop factor of the XSI, I’m looking at the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM. It may not be quite as wide as I’m

shooting with the point and shoot, but I think I can get by with that while I’m learning the new camera. On the longer

end, it will be much more of what I currently am comfortable shooting. After I get comfortable with the camera and

save up some more money, I’ll look beyond the first lens/lenses (I may also get the EF 50 1.8 when I get the

camera, if I can swing it).

The reviews I have read said the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM has image quality comparable to the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS

USM. I have seen these referred to as intermediate level zooms. Also, the new EF-S 18-55 3.5-5.6 IS and the EF-S

55-250 4.0-5.6 IS have both been lauded as having much better IQ than previous kit level lenses. However, I have not

seen anyone compare these two new EF-S lenses with the EF 28-105 II or the EF 28-135 IS as far as IQ is

concerned. So, is there much difference now between the kit lenses and the older intermediate level zooms?

I did see where Bakari Chavanu’s wedding kit includes the EF 28-105 II (in the Wedding Photography using Aperture

article). Everyone may not agree with that choice, but to me it says the lens must be at least pretty decent and

better than the kit level lenses.

My budget will probably allow the XSI w/kit lens and the EF-S 55-250 or the XSI body with EF 28-105 and probably

the 50 1.8. I don’t think I can swing the price tag of the EF 28-135 (certainly not coupled with the 50 1.8). My desire

is to shoot family/people candid, environmental family portrait (ambient light), close-ups of larger flowers (though not

1:1 macro yet). Other styles or types of photography will come later, probably street/architecture and 1:1 macro

when I can afford the appropriate lenses. I’ll probably not have the means or opportunity to be able to add additional

lenses for 2-3 years after initial purchase. My principle concern is IQ, as I don’t want shabby results based on

equipment that might discourage me. I know there will be plenty of user error in the beginning.

I would appreciate your input on these lenses in the area of IQ, especially if you can compare the new kit lens with

the EF 28-105. I know the 50 1.8 should have a higher IQ than the kit lens at 50mm. Another interest in the EF 28-

105 length is that it will allow me to know whether I should save my pennies for the future purchase of the EF 24-105

L lens, based on focal length anyway.

Thank you in advance for your guidance in this regard.

DS Meador

-- "I’m looking at the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM"

-- "It may not be quite as wide as I’m shooting"

-- "On the longer end, it will be much more"

With that said ... I suggest to have a look on the EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM ... build qualitry and optical quality is very similar to that of the 28-105 USM.

I used a 24-85 USM on a 10D for a year or so and liked the lens: reasonably sharp, nice range, ultra fast AF and tiny/light.

It's about as wide as your typical point 'n shoot and I found the range fine for most snapshots. When I replaced it with a 17-

40L I really missed the long side.

I had the 24-85 for a few years

The Canon EF 17-40 L is much sharper with better colors & cotrast

I used the 28-105 II on my 5D and it performed quite well.

The 28-105 II is better then the 24-85 for sharpness.

The best option is the EF 24-105 F4 L IS

I got the 28-105 for my film SLR, and continued to use it when I got a 350D. I soon replaced it with a 28-135IS because I needed the extra length and the IS. The image quality is similar and quite decent, although the 28-135 has more distortion at the wide end (relatively simple to correct). The 28-105 is much lighter and smaller.

28mm isn't wide enough for a 1.6 crop. So I also have a Tokina 12-24.

"I used the 28-105 II on my 5D and it performed quite well. The 28-105 II is better then the 24-85 for sharpness."

I suspect there is sample variation at play here. I've owned 3 EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM since 1992. All were a little different

but in the same ball park in terms of IQ. However my 24-85 USM was actually a little better in terms of sharpness and flare

control.

I suggest considering some of the 18-200+ mm lenses. Canon, Sigma and Tamron all make them. I have the Sigma 18-200mm OS lens and it got me started very well. I have read quite a bit about the new Canon 18-200mm and the Tamron 18-270mm and it sounds like the Tamron could be the best bet for image quality out of the three. In my case, I went with a 40D and only had money left for one lens - thus the Sigma 18-200mm. I think it out performs any kit lens in range and flexibility and can’t be much different in image quality.

Here are some other reasons for my suggestion: 24-28mm is not quite wide enough on a crop body. 17-18mm is much better for the basic wide angle range. The 200+ mm range is also nice for nature shots. All three of the lenses mentioned above will also get you started with basic macro capabilities. With one lens, you can cover quite a bit of territory until you learn more and can afford better.

Since I got my lens, I have added a Sigma 10-20mm, a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 and a Canon 100-400mm. Primes come next. However, even with better lenses available to me, I still use my Sigma 18-200mm quite frequently when hiking in the woods or in situations where I do not want to carry a heavy bad of camera gear around.

Sure, there are better lenses that cover small parts of the 18-200+ mm range, but the 18-200+ mm lens covers the 18-200+ mm range far better than no lens in that range at all. And the image quality, from a practical perspective is probably far better than you think.

Try one out in a camera store.

Good luck!

Thank you all for your responses.

I guess the general feeling is that the intermediate level zooms are still the better option to the kit level lenses.

Thank you for pointing me to the EF24-85. I had not looked into that one yet. I'll dig deeper into reviews for it now that I know about it.

Thanks - DS Meador

I use a 28-105 with reasonable results and added a 24mm for wider compositions. Both lenses were cheaper than the 24-105 and it seems the 24 is sharper and more luminous than the L lens. Not to mention that both lenses are smaller and lighter too.

Yesterday I got a tamron 28-200xr on ebay because it cost €89 only and I gather it may be interesting to have a longer focal length sometimes.