Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 4, 2013, 7:57 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Without question.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM (Tested)

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM (Tested)

Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM (Tested)
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 8:07 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

TCav:

Wow--great information--thanks so much.

The lukewarm reviews of the Sigma are no surprise.

The question for me becomes 24-105 vs 28-135 and whether sacrificing range is worth $600. What I mean is whether the image quality justifies the expense. The reviews seem to indicate that it does.

Would you agree?

dg
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 9:06 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

According to the SLRGear Test Results, the 28-135 is sharper from about 50mm on, than the 24-105. From the fact that you're dissatisfied with your 17-50/2.8 for street photography, my guess is that you'd spend a lot of time at 50 or longer, so you'd probably be more satisfied with the 28-135 than the 24-105.

That is not to say that you wouldn't be happy with the 24-105. I just think you'd be happier with the 28-135.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 9:09 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

It really depends on how good your expectation are for your photos. The L lens are great, but photography is a hobby. And street photography is not a major interest, the added cost of the L is not worth it between the 24-105 and the 28-135. And for portraits I use a bunch of different primes, and I like primes lenses generally over zooms.

But for airplane spotting the 100-400L is worth it for me as it is a big interest for me in photography.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 9:18 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Thanks for the replies.

For the record, my 17-50 mm is my favorite in terms of quality. It's the 18-200 that I'm least happy with.

I think the 28-135 is probably a smarter choice for me. However, if I went for a direct replacement of the Sigma 18-200, how would this compare?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._5_5_6_IS.html

Would the image quality beat the Sigma?

Would it be better than the Canon 28-135?

>> And street photography is not a major interest

I don't know what this means, because it's a major interest for me, especially living in New York.

dg

Last edited by dg27; Mar 4, 2013 at 9:27 AM.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 10:08 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

IQ between the canon and sigma are about the same, you are not going to get a major improvement over the sig. But for a superzoom lens, the canon is a little better then the sig. But if I were going to get a megazoom I would go with something like the tamron 18-270 VC PZ. But that is not a lens that will fit your needs as well. As long end is not what you will be needing. 50-80mm is where I think you will use your lens the most. So the 28-135 is a bargain compare to the 24-105L or the 15-85.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 10:24 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

OK--great--thanks.
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 10:32 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

This is the 28-135 at F8, and the crop. F8 at 1600iso, FL 80mm
Attached Images
  
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.

Last edited by shoturtle; Mar 4, 2013 at 10:37 AM.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 10:36 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
dg27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 154
Default

Thanks for sharing! I think this lens is the ticket...
dg27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2013, 10:59 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Multiple lenses of less ambitious zoom ranges, in the same price range, will give you better image quality than any superzoom lens.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:08 AM.