Canon 28-105mm or 28-200mm?

[jay hayter]

Would anyone recommend either of these lenses? I've read mixed

opinions elsewhere so I thought I would check here. Also, the 28-

105mm that I'm looking at apparently has image stabalization. Which

should I consider?

 

One more thing.....Do all 28-105mm models have a metal lens mount?

[maureen_m]

<i>Would anyone recommend either of these lenses?</i><p>Yes. The EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 (NOT the newer f4-5.6 version).<p><i>I've read mixed opinions elsewhere so I thought I would check here.</i><p>Well, you'll get that here, too!<p><i>Also, the 28- 105mm that I'm looking at apparently has image stabalization.</i><p>Not a chance.<p><i>Which should I consider?</i><p>See first response above.<p><i>One more thing.....Do all 28-105mm models have a metal lens mount?</i><p>The f3.5-4.5, yes. The f4-5.6, looks like plastic in the <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/f_lens.html">Canon Camera Museum photo.</a>

[jay hayter]

So that puts another one in the running.

28-105mm USM

28-135mm IS (although it's a little more than I'd like to spend)

or 28-200mm USM

 

Thanks.

[wilfred_m_rand]

28-105 USM II 3.5-4.5 has the metal mount. At 28mm it is a tad soft, the 28-135 IS is sharper. At 50 they're equal, at 105 the 28-105 is clearly beats the 28-135 IS, which gets softer with longer focal lengths. (Generally speaking, IS lenses are softer than non-IS if the camera is stable, but, of course, they have the advantage when handheld. The extra optical elements in IS lenses do have an effect, as you would expect.)

 

I don't know about the Canon 28-200, but my personal opinion is that zooms much beyond 3x entail severe optic compromises. No matter who the manufacturer is, you'll usually find the best zooms are things like 12-24, 17-35, 17-40 (2x wide zooms) and 24-70, 70-200, 100-300 (3x tele zooms).

 

I have a Sigma 28-200 for use in a pinch - but it's no match for an 3x-er I've ever owned or used.<div></div>

[erb_duchenne]

My preference<p>

1. 28-135 IS<br>

2. 28-105<br>

3. 28-200

[John Crowe]

I'll throw another one into the mix, although it too may be out of your price range, and it is a little shorter. The Canon EF 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM. Quite likely the sharpest of all the wide/portrait non-L zooms.

[suman]

I owned the 28-105 for a while and it's a very capable lens with proper use of technique. I would say your best option will be 24-85 USM, the best of this whole bunch. In the telephoto range your lose will not be vital but an extra 4mm in wide range is a big deal in landscape photography.<div></div>

[jimstrutz]

The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is consistently rated *slightly* higher than the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5. I don't know why John thinks it's better, but most people that have used both don't agree. The 28-135 USM IS is consistently rated *slightly* higher than the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5. All of them are good consumer zooms. The 28-135 adds more zoom range, Image Stabilization and more weight at a higher cost. I personally think it's worth it, and sold my 28-105 to get one. The Canon 28-200 is consistently rated as one of the poorer performing 28-200 zooms out there, as far as image quality is concerned.

 

The Tamron 24-135 is another highly regarded lens in this price catagory. It's wider than Canon's 28-135, but lacks IS. Some people claim it's sharper than the Canon. Tamron's 28-200 XR is generally rated as the best super zoom lens being sold, but it's not as good as these other lenses of less zoom range. Sigma's 28-200 is not usually rated as well, but is generally rated as a better lens than the Canon, and has been greatly improved in the past few years.

[strathconaman]

My first EOS lens was the 28-200, bought mainly because I didn?t know much about lenses at the time. I used it on two trips, one to Utah and one to Peru. Then I found photonet, and realized that the 28-200 probably wasn?t giving me the best images.

 

So now I have $1000?s in lenses. Fast, sharp, high contrast, Image Stabilization; great stuff. Yes, they make great images (whether they are good photos is another question, more dependant me than the glass). They also weigh a tonne.

 

Sometimes I wish that I had just brought the 28-200. Stop it down, use the tripod (which I carry even with the piles of glass) and just take pictures. No heavy packs, no switching lenses in the dust and rain.

 

Don?t use it for studio work. Don?t use it for commercial work. Do use it for pictures of that hike in the mountains.

 

P.S. Girlfriend has the 28-135 IS and it is fantastic.

[sean corley]

I'm very happy with my 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM II. Here are sample shots taken with this lens.

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1707420 target=_?blank?>1</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1715913 target=_?blank?>2</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1722679 target=_?blank?>3</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1711989 target=_?blank?>4</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1711891 target=_?blank?>5</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1937612 target=_?blank?>6</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1938993 target=_?blank?>7</a>

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/1722686 target=_?blank?>8</a>

[albert lui]

According to PopPhoto, the 28-135 is Canon's sharpest non-L zoom with the wide end starting at 28.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> I had the <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28105">28-105/3.5-4.5</a> and really liked it. Small, cheap, very fast AF, very sharp at f/8-11. Hyperzooms are <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#28200">not known</a> for their optical excellence, to put it mildly. Thus my advise is to go for the first one.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim.</p>

[grahams]

28-105 3.5/4.5 USM II - Never had a shot that I didn't like from this lens, it's far better than I am.

[taner]

Do you see yourself taking your interest in photography to more advanced levels? If you do, then save yourself time and money by avoiding the "kit-zoom to consumer zoom upgrade", and go for two small, cheap, sharp, flare resistant, zero or low distortion primes: EF 28mm f/2.8 and EF 50mm f/1.8. The two of them will cost less than that 28-200 zoom, and will weigh less than the 28-105 zoom (and will be comparable in volume).

 

It really is not a big deal to change these small light lenses frequently, and with fim, you do not have the sensor dust problem. The 28-105 zoom will not come anywhere near the 28mm prime unless it is stopped down to f/8. With the 28mm prime at f/4 and with ISO 400, you can enjoy almost focusless (hyper-focal) street photography and and still get super sharp shots. The contrast, the lack of distortion and flare: all superb, especially given the price.

 

And the 50mm prime: well let me put it this way, given its price and how sharp it is, it is a crime not to own one. Buy a used low end film body, and use your 50mm at the beach, in a dust storm, in a canoe, when it is snowing... Use it until it gives up on you, and then buy another one...

 

And in time, when you recover from the not so major financial damage resulting from the purchase of these primes, start saving for a third short telephoto prime: EF 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 macro, etc.

 

Trust me with this one: the 105 end (which really is about 100mm) on the 28-105 zoom is pretty useless with its maximum aperture of f/4.5 for portraits. And forget using ISO 100 film except for a brief while at noon... That zoom lens, given its price, is admittedly very good for stopping down on a tripod - you can shoot ISO 50 if you wanted to then. But is that all you expect to do with you photography?

 

Been there, done that. Cheers.<div></div>

[richard thompson www.fotoz]

Get the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di.

 

Sharper than all the lenses already mentioned. Its faster too !

[ron c sunshine coast,qld,a]

As mentioned several times,ONLY consider the f3.5-4.5 version of the 28-105.Note also that type II is only a current model designation for this lens and earler models didn't have it (but the earlier models are still as good if you wanted to buy secondhand).The only thing to be sure of is to make sure it's an f3.5-4.5

<P>I'll add my opinion to what Jim says -I'm sure you'll be quite happy with either the 28-105 or the 28-135 IS.

<BR>The 28-200 is to be avoided -i'd guess you wouldn't like it optically

<P>Also seriously consider the tamron 28-75 mentioned above,an excellent lens

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM was the first lens I got with my first EOS body and it's a good lens. (The current II version of this has identical optics and mechanics to the one I had.) <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">The 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM is better.</a> Ignore the cheaper 28-105 model (referred to in one of the previous responses for what appears to be its plastic lens mount); it's not as good as these.</p>

 

<p>The 28-200 is a jack of all trades, master of none. If you want one lens to cover a broad range of focal lengths, and don't plan on enlarging beyond 5x7" or maybe 8x10", it should do the trick. But the 28-105 or 28-135 will be better.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

I used to have the 28~105/3.5~4.5, original version. It was good, but not that good. Not as good as the 20~35 between 28 and 35, nothing like as good as the 17~40 between 28 and 40. I sold it and use primes for mid-range work, waiting for Canon to produce, if they ever do, an f/4 mid-range L-series zoom. You could certainly do a lot worse than the 28~105. My wife has the 28~135 and has had some good results from that. You are not likely to get many recomendations for the 28~200 on this forum.

 

If you look for a s/h 28~105/3.5~4.5, then you need to know that there were actually two versions before the one labelled as II. The earlier one had a five-blade iris and the later one a seven-blade iris. They are all identical in optical formula and the II has the same seven-blade iris as the later original version. One of the earlier ones says 'MACRO' and the other has a flower symbol (both unwarranted marketing labels) but I am afraid I cannot remember which was which. You will probably want to look for a seven-blade version.

[jltaft]

Jason,

 

I have used the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5, the Canon 24-85, and the Tamron 24-135. All are good for certain kinds of situations. All are not so good for portraits if you want wide aperature at around 100mm. I found that I really needed at least 400 ISO film with all of them to hand hold the camera on cloudy days. The Tamron gets heavy after 4 or 5 hours of walking around.

 

If I had to carry one zoom lense for a long period I would probably go with the newer 28-105 f3.5-4.5. If I wanted to carry a second lens it would the 50mm f1.4 which I already own. But I hear the 50mm f1.8 is very sharp and is certainly cheaper.

 

My preference is for prime lenses so I can hand-hold at reasonable shutter speeds and reasonably fine grain (100 ISO) film. But this means carrying 3 or 4 in the 20, 24, 35, 50, 100mm range. I have not felt the need for a lens longer than 100mm for some time. I do have 1.4x converter that takes the 100mm up to 140mm with a loss of 1 stop.

 

Finally, I was reminded on my last trip to think more carefully about matching the lens to the kind of photo being taken. I carried the Tamron 24-135 because of its sharpness at middle aperatures. Then I ended up shooting a lot foggy mornings at wide aperatures for which this is not the best lens.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Jay