85mm 1.8 or 28-135 IS?

[ridinhome]

<p>Hello all,<br>

So I know comparing these two lenses is like comparing apples and oranges, but I'm looking for a bit of advice. I will be travelling to India in a couple of weeks, and am planning on taking my 350D and my trusty T90. Before I go, I'm thinking about adding another lens to my EOS kit. I currently have the 18-55 non IS (kit lens) and the 50mm f1.8 II. I'd like to add a lens which gives me a bit more reach on the long end. Typically I prefer to shoot with primes, though for this trip I'm planning on taking my FD 35-105 and FD 50 1.8. I expect to be doing 50-50 indoor stuff with friends and family, but also some walk about street photography. I don't have an EX speedlite, though in a pinch I could use my old 199A (unfortunately my 300TL doesn't work with my 350D).<br>

My initial thought was to buy the 28-135 because of the broader range it offers. However from the reviews I've read, it doesn't seem as if the IQ of this lens is stellar (yes, I'm an IQ snob even though I have a long way to go before I will have the skills to make use of most primes). The other concern I have is that I've read that it is prone to picking up dust, which is a concern for me since India is a VERY dusty country. I appreciate that on a 1.6x crop the 28-135 is more like a 45(ish)-200(ish). I don't expect to be doing a lot of landscape work while I'm in India.<br>

Which is why I got to thinking about the 85mm f1.8. The attractions are the extra f-stops and the fact that it seems to be such a good lens I'm more likely to make use of it (especially if I upgrade to a FF). Of course, its more expensive than the 28-135 but not by so much that it would break the bank. And as I said, I'm partial to primes. Of course, it doesn't have IS, which I imagine would be useful in street photography. Or would it? I've never used IS before.<br>

So what do you think? Do the improved IQ, extra f-stops and general build quality (i.e. dust resistance) outweigh the greater flexibility and IS of the 28-135? Also, if I get the 28-135 I will probably leave the 18-55 kit behind, so if I get the 85mm it'll mean carrying teh 18-55 with me so that I have something equal to a normal lens.<br>

Thanks!<br>

Kayam</p>

[py-photography]

<p>I had the 28-135, before I upgraded to the 24-105.<br>

I enjoyed the lens and the IS did help me get some more keepers, I have doubt about that..<br>

But it will not compete with the 85 for IQ.<br>

I enjoyed using 28-135 on my XTi(400D), and was seldom disappointed in the results of the IQ.<br>

As you pointed out the long end on a crop body is nice for the extra reach, 28 on a crop body is a little long, but I never felt limited by that. <br>

I say go to local camera shop and give both a try on your 350D, and make the choice based on how they feel/work on your 350D.</p>

[mathew_gardella]

<p>i wouldn't get either... i would shoot for the 24-105 f/4 IS L for the trip and then sell it used when you return if you can't afford to keep it. it will meet all of your need from the sound of it. you will only lose a small amount of the value which it would cost you if you rented it and i think the pics would be much better.... if not, i would get the 85mm... i have both lenses (85 and 28-135 and i'd take the faster aperture over the IS.) good luck and enjoy your trip.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Sorry, I accidentally double posted.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Kayam, I'd take Mat's advice and get a 24-105/4 IS L. It's versatility and IQ are very comparable to that of your FD 35-105. You might also consider taking a 70-200/4 IS L for even more reach. </p>

[luis_g]

<p> Since 1/2 of your pictures will be "indoors with friends", in your shoes, I would acquire the Sigma 30/1.4 and leave the 50/1.8 for the 350D at home. I'd want the newer version of the 18-55, with IS, as it will do most of the heavy lifting on your trip and has superior IQ to the older kit lens. I don't mean to start any controversy, but a long lens isn't all that useful in street photography. Get closer to your subjects. Besides, the difference in reach between the 85 on the 350D and that great 35-105FD (I love mine) is minimal.</p>

<p> Since you're taking film, forgive me, but I'm going to make a non-Canon recommendation. I would take along an Olympus Stylus Epic (same as MJU-II) in black, loaded with ISO 400 or 800 film. It is plenty sharp, pocketable, quick-handling, easy to carry, has built-in flash, would help you blend in, and the things are eminently useful for what you will be doing. A friend of mine went to India twice with his family, had to pack light, and took <em>only</em> two MJU-II's (one for back-up), and did great with them.</p>

<p> </p>

[ridinhome]

<p>Thanks for your responses! Mat, Mark - I am incredibly tempted by the thought of that 24-105. What a lens. My concern however is that when I buy it, I'll be bitten by the L disease. And there is no cure for that.<br>

Luis - thanks for your advice. Will look at that Sigma.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>Kayam, if your budget will allow the 24-105, I'd consider it and yes, you may be bitten by "L" fever but you don't have to give in to it; there are a lot of lenses that aren't "L" that can give you superb IQ for less cost. I don't have the 24-105 (I generally keep the 17-40L on my 7D) but I do have the 28-135. In fact I've had mine for 10 years and have never been disappointed with the image quality. When used at the correct apertures it can deliver excellent quality; there are several pictures in the Fall/Winter edition of Nature Photographer magazine taken with this lens. It can be a dust vacuum though, but I've not had that problem either. I also have the 85/1.8 and it is a stellar lens but it seriously limits what you can shoot though, especially on a crop body. However if you're going to use it as a short telephoto, it's very hard to beat and for portraits it's outstanding. As for the 28-135, perhaps I was blessed with a very good copy because I love that lens and have learned to get great results from it. I've thought about getting a 24-105 at some point, although from reading about the 15-85, it sounds interesting as well and I don't feel that the 24-105 is $800 better than the 28-135, although if I had one I might feel differently. Luis made some good suggestions, especially with regard to the Sigma 30/1.4. That would be a great all-around lens, one that I've recently considered looking into as well. Plus you can't beat a Stylus Epic for compact convenience and superb film IQ!</p>

[darrendrevik]

<p>The 24-105 is next on my lens wish list. Good all-around lens and I plan to keep it on my body as my "walking around lens." That said, I find I frame pictures better when I'm walking around with a prime lens like a 50mm or 85mm, because I have to do the "zooming" with my feet!</p>

[shadowcatcher]

<p>I've had both, 85mm everytime.</p>