28-105mm... Gone the way of the Dodo?

[jaycobar-chay]

As far as I can tell (and I'm not too observant) there aren't any lenses out there that give a crop body user (what I

possibly inacurately assume is) the normal "walkaround" 28-105 range either in the APS-C format or after the smaller

sensor magnification. What gives with that?

 

In terms of the digital age I did some looking:

 

As far as I can tell, Canon has the EF-S 17-85 3.5-5.6 USM IS. I guess its not bad; fast focus, IS "makes up" for

smaller max aperture, but in term of range, its still not a 28-105.

 

Nikon has the AF-S 18-135 3.5-5.6. Nice in terms of walk around range, but it has pretty crappy max apertures and

NO vibration reduction to attempt to compensate.

 

Tamron has a 17-50 2.8. Still short in the range department, but at least it's got 2.8...

Tamron also has an 18-200 3.5-6.3 with NO vibration compensation. It jumped right over the 105 mark and picked up

terrible max apertures with no help for them.

 

Sigma has an 18-125 3.8-5.6. Closest to the range I'm talking about and it has optical stabilization to make up for

the max apertures. Not bad I guess, but its the only thing being made that is close to what I'm talking about...

 

I haven't looked, but I don't think anyone offers something like a 17-70 for full frame bodies to give the smaller sensor

shooters the 28-105 range.

 

 

I ask about this because I have a Canon EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM and I loved what it could do for me on film, and still

do with digital, it just doesn't go as wide as I'd like. I am assuming here, but hasn't the 28-105 range been a typical

zoom before the digital age?

[hjoseph7]

The Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 has been my work worse, walk around, travel, discrete, everything lens for the past 5 years. Of couse it can't compete with the 24-70mm 'L' lens which I purchased recently, but I will probably be burried with that lens I like it so much. On a close cropped sensor you lose the wide angle, but you gain more reach.

On a full frame sensor it gives you jus enough of a wide angle view, but I prefer the 24-70mm for that purpose. Actuall, I wish they changed, or came out with a 20mm-85 lens which would be just about right for a true walk-around lens.

[thomas_hardy1]

Sigma has a new 18-125 with optical stabilization available.

[anov]

That Canon EF-S 17-85 4-5.6 USM IS is "equivalent" to at 27-136mm, pretty close to the 28-105mm.

[jaycobar-chay]

I could be wrong, but the EF-S is set up for the smaller sensors, can't be used on a full frame body (at least in terms of covering the entire frame with an image to record) and is, in fact, a 17-85 when used on the bodies it was designed for.

[bobatkins]

The 17-85 has exactly the same zoom range in terms of field of view as a 27-136mm lens would have on a full frame body, which I assume is what you are looking for.

 

If you actually want a 28-105, just buy a 28-105.

 

EF-S lenses are marked with ACTUAL focal length not "eqivalent" focal length.

[machts gut]

Olympus has a 2.8-3.5/ 14-54mm lens in it's program. The field of view is like 28-108 for 35mm.

[hakon_soreide]

Well, you are wrong, Jacob. The focal range for all those lenses you listed is the actual focal range, not the 35mm equivalent for an APS-C body - only P&S cameras are advertised with those numbers rather than the actual ones, and so several of the ones you list in your original question have the range you want, and even more than that.

[jaycobar-chay]

I'm confused. If the EF-S is marked 17-85 and you guys say that they are marked "actual" focal length, then doesn't

it see like a 17-85 would on a full frame camera? Isn't 17 much wider than 28 and isn't 85 shorter than 105?

 

If I wanted a 28-105 just get one? I have one, and it turns into a 45-168 on a crop body.

 

I know very little about all of the digital specific lenses because I have kept hoping that one day I would get a full

frame digital. In the meantime, I have simply multiplied any full frame lens focal length by 1.6 to determine the "new"

focal length on my 10D. I was at first under the impression that the digital specific lenses needed to be mulitiplied

by the crop factor, then someone corrected me and told me they didn't; now in this thread it seems like I'm getting

both answers.

 

Bob's reply is especially confusing. If they are ACTUAL focal lengths and not equivalent, how does a 17-85 turn into

a 27-136?

 

Please someone clear this up for me, and try to be patient and kind when doing so...

[Ken Katz]

"how does a 17-85 turn into a 27-136?"

 

Same way your 28-105 turns into a 45-168 on crop body, by multiplying the focal lenth by 1.6x

 

You may want to consider the Sigma 17-70, which gets a decent review (though I have not used one)

[phule]

[[bob's reply is especially confusing. If they are ACTUAL focal lengths and not equivalent, how does a 17-85 turn into a 27-136? ]]

 

They don't "turn into" anything. The focal length DOES NOT change. Focal length is a physical property of a lens.

 

What changes is your field of view when mounted on a camera that has a sensor smaller than "full frame" 35mm. This is where the multiplication factor comes in (for Canon cameras, 1.6). The field of view provided by a lens with an actual focal length of 17-85mm is equivalent to the field of view provided by a 27-136mm lens on a camera with a full frame camera (film or digital).

[phule]

[[This is where the multiplication factor comes in (for Canon cameras, 1.6)]]

 

Of course this is wrong. Sorry. Canon has two camera families that do not have full frame sensors. The 1D family has a sensor that's larger than the Rebel and 40D line but smaller than full frame. The factor for these cameras is 1.3x.

[andrew_gale]

I guess your talking Canon since Nikon makes the 18-70DX (27-105), just what your looking for.