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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 6, 2006, 4:40 AM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 32
Default

I'm making the switch to Canon 30D and I'm looking for advice on a starting lens.

I've narrowed myself down to two choices (remaining within a budget):

Canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

or

Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM

Both seem to receive similar ratings by users on various websites, so anyone have experience with both? Is one slightly better than the other? Is one generally sharper than the other?

The 28-105 is a bit cheaper than the 24-85, but has been rated slightly higher overall. How come?

Granted, I realize that neither lens will really suit my needs completely (I primarily shoot model portfolio work) but I have to compromise somewhere.

I had no idea that good Canon lenses were so pricey! Yes, I'm a Canon noob.
William Kious is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 6, 2006, 7:34 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

The 24 -85 is very sharp. If you can, get the 28 - 135 IS. I have both of the aforementioned lenses and I use the 28 - 135 most of the time.(I got the 24 - 85 from a friend for $75, I couldn't pass on the deal) If you are shooting models, the 28 - 105 would seem to be the better choice.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 9:28 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is actually the sharpest out of the 3 on a cropped camera (according to the Photozone measurements):
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...6_is/index.htm

On a 30D however a 'digital' only lens even from a 3rd party is probably better - it comes with constant f/2.8, and only a $1200 Canon EFs 17-55 f/2.8 can beat it in sharpness:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

-> Even at wide open (i.e. f/2.8 ) the 'digitals' (Sigma/Tamron or Tokina) exceed the full frame lenses @ f/8-11 in resolution! :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 10:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
wsandman1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 318
Default

NHL, I agree. I only gave Canon choices because of the Canon snoob comment.
wsandman1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 6, 2006, 10:45 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 32
Default

I considered a Sigma but I had issues with a few Sigma products years back and swore-off the brand. There may be some nice Sigma or Tamron glass out there, but I would rather not go the "reverse engineering" route.

If I was looking for a prime, maybe... but not on a zoom.
William Kious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2006, 3:50 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 28
Default

I have the 28-105 w/o IS from my pre D-SLR days. And it is surely sharp. But I find myself with the 50 1.4 most of the time. On the 30d, it does great work almost in the dark.
jcepp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 12, 2006, 3:53 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 32
Default

I've been fairly pleased with the 28-105 so far. I wish I could have gotten something a bit faster, but I can't have everything for under $300, can I? LOL!

jcepp wrote:
Quote:
I have the 28-105 w/o IS from my pre D-SLR days. And it is surely sharp. But I find myself with the 50 1.4 most of the time. On the 30d, it does great work almost in the dark.
William Kious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 8:06 AM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 41
Default

On a 30D however a 'digital' only lens even from a 3rd party is probably better - it comes with constant f/2.8, and only a $1200 Canon EFs 17-55 f/2.8 can beat it in sharpness:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

-> Even at wide open (i.e. f/2.8 ) the 'digitals' (Sigma/Tamron or Tokina) exceed the full frame lenses @ f/8-11

NHL,

Are you saying that the 2.8 Sigma/Tamron digital lenses are as good or better than the Canon 2.8?

Thanks- Ken
ken6217 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 15, 2006, 9:58 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

ken6217 wrote:
Quote:
NHL,

Are you saying that the 2.8 Sigma/Tamron digital lenses are as good or better than the Canon 2.8?

Thanks- Ken
Yes - when compared to full-frame Canon lenses: The 'digital' lenses are in general always sharper than the full-frame based on the MTF - Kind of make sense since the images formed by theses digital lenses tend to hit the sensor at a right angle, whereas images on a full-frame especially at the border are usually projected sideway...

The Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 'digital' is slighly better at the center and comes with IS, but the Tamron seems to beat it in the borders (according to the measured MTF's). The question is: is it worth x2-x3 time the price (and still plastic)?: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...5_28/index.htm
NHL 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 9:25 AM.