blackhole Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 <p>Hi,<br><br>I am planning to replace the Canon 28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS USM,<br><br>My choices are<br><br>Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF ($299)<br>Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di ($329.95)<br><br>or<br>Just EF 35mm f/2.0 $224.95 + (EF 28mm f/2.8 ($154.95) OR Sigma 28mm f/1.8 EX ($229.00)<br><br>( already have EF 24mm f/2.8 + EF 50mm f/1.8 + Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L)<br><br>I know that Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L ($1179.95) is and option but tooo pricey :(<br><br>Primary use with EOS 10D and occasional EOS 300<br><br>Thanks for all the advice<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellavance Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 Are you replacing the 28-135 because of a lack of sharpness / contrast? I'm also thinking of replacing my 28-135, and I've been thinking of the 24-70L, but since I already have the 17-40L (great lens), I might get the 70-200L IS instead, and maybe eventually the 50/1.4 or 24-70L to fill the gap. I like zoom lenses, as they allow me to leave with just one or two lenses, and Canon L Lenses are very sharp for zoom lenses. Pierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 I agree. Why are you replacing?? For the zoom crowd, the 17-40/4L, 50/1.4 (or 1.8) and the 70-200 in any of its flavors is a righteous combination. For someone who goes with primes, the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 (or 1.8) and 100 is a good combination. Especially with a 70-200 for telephoto work. Frankly, I am not sure that having a 24, 28, 35 and 50 on a 10D isn't overkill. In these zoom ranges zooming with feet is a realistic option. I have been successful with a 24 and a 50, with no real desire to get something in the middle. If I have a "composition problem", then I grab the 24 and crop later. . . Why not just get the 35 for now, and see if down the road you find that you need something additional? If you are willing to go primes, then there is no need for the expensive 24-70/2.8L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 While I have tested the Tamron lens, I too have to chime in as to why? The Tamron MAY have a slight edge in sharpness, but the Canon offers more in terms of the USM motor and the IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackhole Posted September 20, 2003 Author Share Posted September 20, 2003 my reason for replacing is due to the following reason 1. I don't like the lens result wide open have to stop down > f/8 to get good result and above 100mm the results are bit to soft. 2. since I got the primes 24,50,100 I always find myself using them and love the results even in low light with higher ISO to get good shutter speed , I find the results far better than 28-135 with IS at ISO 100. These are the two main reasons of replacing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted September 20, 2003 Share Posted September 20, 2003 >>( already have EF 24mm f/2.8 + EF 50mm f/1.8 + Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro + EF 70-200mm f/2.8L)<< Aveek, IMO you really don't need anymore than you have, unless of course you want a "wide zoom" (a zoom to leave on the camera most of the time). In that case, have you thought about the Canon 17-40L f/4 lens? It's a great lens but, perhaps not as fast as you'd like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chip l. Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 I am surprised that you are not getting better results. By chance do you leave the IS on all the time? Saw a posting somewhere that indicated that leaving it on when it is not needed lowers the image quality. Or maybe you have a bad sample... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david choo Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Aveek, depending on what kind of photography you do... if it isn't fast paced, needing to change focal lengths quickly type of photography, get Prime lenses. Zoom lenses simply can't be sharper or more contrasty then primes simply because of how they're built and the glass is cut. I personally would purchase something with f/2.8 or wider simply because it makes life 100 times easier to focus. I would stick with Canon lenses, but from what I've seen from 3rd party manufacturers, Tokina has the highest grade glass construction. Sure they're lenses aren't exactly beautiful to look at, but they have a higher quality build then Tamrons and Sigmas, and use excellent glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charles_lipton Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 My opinion too...you already have a nice selection...I have been doing some research into the Tamron 24-135mm. It's rated pretty high in photogrpahyreview.com.....I personally haven't seen it but it appears to fill alot of nitches.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellavance Posted September 21, 2003 Share Posted September 21, 2003 Someone said: ""I am surprised that you are not getting better results. By chance do you leave the IS on all the time? Saw a posting somewhere that indicated that leaving it on when it is not needed lowers the image quality."" 1- After you've seen pictures made with an "L" lens such as the 17-40, you too will see the good old 28-135 as inferior, unfortunately - or fortunately - depending on your financial fortune... 2- I don't think leaving IS on all the time (except maybe when on a tripod...) lowers picture quality. I never turn IS off on my 28-135. Pierre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now