28-105/3.5-4.5 vs. 28-135/3.5-5.6

[donny_jatisambogo]

Hi all!

 

I have a 28-105mm/3.5-4.5. Is it worth 'upgrading' to a 28-135mm/3.5-

5.6 IS? Quality-wise, that is. I've been offered one (used, like new)

at IDR 2,100,000 (around USD 220.) I also have a 100-300mm/4.5-5.6,

but I try not to let it stop me from getting the 28-135 :)

 

One more question: is it true that with PowerShot A80 in M(anual)

mode the flash only fires once (i.e. no preflash)? It's important to

me because I live in Indonesia where even getting a decent slave

trigger unit (optical) is difficult, let alone getting one that's

digital-/preflash-savvy. Anyone could point me to a website with

schematics for a preflash-savvy slave unit?

 

Thanks a lot in advance!

 

Donny

[aljaz_.]

It's a testimony to the quality of 28-135mm/3.5-5.6IS that these questions died out long ago. I remember them being asked once or twice a week, but recently everyone seems to have bought the IS.

 

Otherwise, this is from the archives:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008ZBf

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007VMC

etc...

 

 

Wouldn't you consider the tamron 28-75/2.8?

[bobatkins]

The 28-135 IS is slightly better optically. The difference is small, but real. However if you don't use a tripod, you use slow shutter speeds and you're hands are shaky, the IS may well give you a significant image quality improvement.

<p>

See: <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html</a>

<p>

If you don't need the IS or the extended zoom range and you want a significant image quality boost along with a higher speed lens, look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di. It's usually available for under $400 new, less used of course.

[donny_jatisambogo]

That was really fast! Thanks Aljaz and Bob! And sorry if it's been asked before. The problem with 3rd party lenses is sometimes they're not compatible with all EOS bodies. My friend tried to sell me a 17-85mm (Tamron, if I'm not mistaken). It worked fine on EOS 10s, but wouldn't focus on EOS 3. It could've been just a bad batch, but it really put me off.<BR>

<BR>

What about the price (USD 220)? If I traded my 28-105 in it would probably be valued at IDR 1,200,000 (around USD 130) so I'd have to add about USD 90 to that.<BR>

<BR>

And please also help with the PowerShot A80 question. I have a Metz 32CT3 lying around unused because of its trigger voltage (about 20V, arguably enough to fry my EOS 3's electronics bit by bit)<BR>

<BR>

Thanks!<BR>

[tycho_asna]

I used both lenses for over 4 years.

First i bought 28-135, nice lens but soft although some portraits needed it.

The 28-105 seems more sharp and performs much better at 28-50 range where 28-135 was weak.

Conclusion i use 28-135 only when i need IS or a soft touch.

After 4 years of use, both have to go to the service since the front element lash.

No one is recommended for prints over 12x16.

8x12 is ok.

[aljaz_.]

Notice that the 28-135IS is quite larger and heavier than the 28-105, and I believe so is the Tamron, which made me stay with the 28-105 (but didn't stop others from changing). Anyway, the Tamron lens in question has an excellent reputation for a 400$ lens and would be my choice if I was in the market for a mid-range zoom. Check few posts below. No compatibility issues have been reported so far. Its range of 28-75 is quite short, though, and this is its drawback. Whether 28-135 is worth the additional 90$ for you we can't know. It may be, in view of the original price difference.

 

If you get no answer re. A80 try posting the question again with another subject line.

[steve_dunn2]

<p><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">My 28-135 is sharper than my 28-105 was</a>, but as Bob suggests, it's not a night-and-day difference. For me, the reasons I upgraded were, from most important to least important:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>IS. <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/is_lenses/" target="_blank">IS is magical</a>. I much prefer shooting handheld and IS is a wonderful technology.

<li>The extra range. I had the 100-300 as well but sometimes you don't want to be swapping lenses on and off all the time.

<li>Better optics. I wasn't at all unhappy with the optics of the 28-105, so the fact that the 28-135 is better was more of a nice bonus than a reason to upgrade.

</ol>

[donny_jatisambogo]

Thanks lots all! You've been a great help! I'll do what you suggested, Aljaz. Thanks again!

[phyrpowr]

Have had both, quality difference non-existent on my samples, this from actual prints, not computer screen or reading about it

 

The IS will save more hurried shots than even an f/1.4 lens, you don't realize how much handshake can affect shots. The primo "walkaround" lens

 

If you can get that lens at that price, with that trade in, go for it.

[PuppyDigs]

I have both and they're very close optically. Maybe a pixel peeper could find a slight

difference in sharpness but they seem very close with 11 x 14 prints (the largest I've gone

with both lenses). I prefer the smaller size and weight of the 28-105 over the bulky 28

-135. However the IS feature is heavenly...

[ulrich_brandl]

May be this post is a little late...

 

I would clearly prefer the 28-135mm. One thing that was not mentioned is the fact that IS allows you to stop down the lens more than without IS (this is clearly valid only for handheld shots).

 

And stopped down this lens is very sharp. There are many situations where this fact gives an edge over an optically similar lens w/o IS.

 

Ulrich

[goldwyn_t]

I would say keep the 28-105 until something goes wrong with it. It's not worth the money to 'upgrade' 30mm on the long end and the added IS.