FF wide angle to medium tele that's sharp wide open?

[gaetano catelli]

so, it seems that the moderately priced (ie, under $400) Canon EF wide-angle to

medium-tele's are soft wide open, or even at wide angle.

 

anything better from 3rd party lensmakers for FF sensor that's under $400 (or

at most $500)?

[pnetterfield]

canons 28-105 3.5 model is supposed to be sharp and cheap. i used a friends for a short time and was happy with what i shot.

[sheldonnalos]

I've had a couple of the Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 lenses and was not that impressed at their performance. I've heard the Canon 28-135mm IS is slightly better. but haven't shot one myself. The next real step up in the Canon lineup is the 24-70mm L or the 24-105mm L IS but they sound out of your budget.

 

I have heard good things about the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Supposedly if you get a good copy it's very close to the equal of the 24-70mm Canon. You might look into that lens as an alternative to the Canon L's.

[gaetano catelli]

i have the is the 24-70mm L. i'm very happy with it for paying gigs.

 

but, at 2.1 lb, it's a chore to use it for just walking around, and L's are expensive for casual use.

[colinsouthern]

WHy not sell a few things on ebay and treat yourself to an EF24-70mm F1:2.8L USM?

[gaetano catelli]

already answered (above).

[colinsouthern]

Oops - my apologies - I thought that someone else had written that.

[picturesque]

Try the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Lightweight and just about as sharp as the 24-70mm f.28L. Any lens is somewhat soft-ER wide open. The zoom control works in the opposite direction, the autofocus isn't USM and is noiser and you have to test to make sure you have a sharp copy. Otherwise, it is a great lens. On my Tamron, 28mm f2.8 is just as sharp as smaller apertures. At the longer focal lengths f2.8 is only slightly soft-ER, but not anywhere near the consumer Canon Zooms.

[colinsouthern]

Perhaps a few training weights and some bicep exercises might be the cheapest solution :)

 

Honestly, I'm no Hercules, and I have the same lens on my 1D3 and I can't say that it particularly bothers me - and I don't use a strap.

[keith_lubow]

The 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II is plenty sharp at 4.5 and above. I use it almost daily. I like it best at the tele end wide open and focused close. It's a bit of a junk-quality lens, but the pictures do come out all right.

 

Keith

[gaetano catelli]

"... It's a bit of a junk-quality lens, but the pictures do come out all right."

 

just to be clear, are you refering to the build quality of the 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM II?

[keith_lubow]

yeah

[gdanmitchell]

A cheap zoom that is sharp wide open at very wide angles? Dream on... :-)

 

Dan

[gaetano catelli]

"A cheap zoom that is sharp wide open at very wide angles? Dream on... :-)

 

Dan"

 

i worded my request poorly. i just didn't want to wind up with a lens that looked like it had a softening filter wide open (as happened once with a 3rd party lens i bought on faith at the urging of a certain salesman at a certain large nyc photo store), and a number of the reviews of Canon zooms in this price range were not reassuring.

 

oh, did i mention that i wound up buying a Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS from Gary at Adorama? Gary was quick to point out that this lens has the older version of IS, not the newer version. but, i'm very satisfied with it so far. light enough to walk around Rome with all day, and well into the night, steady enough for handheld available-light street photography at night.