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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by kevinliu4, Sep 27, 2006.

  1. kevinliu4 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #1
    I recently bought the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 lens for my Rebel XT which I love. I'm looking to replace the Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 that came with my Rebel XT with a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM.

    Just wanted some opinions on this lens for everyday use. Don't want to spend more than US$300. I've been told the macro EF 100mm f/2.8 is a lot of fun but that can come later.

    Thanks all.
     
  2. Dark macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #2
  3. kevinliu4 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
  4. kevinliu4 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #4
    Oooh, just read a detailed review of this lens and it seems to be quite average. I looked at the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L but it's way too expensive. I think I will opt for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 which is a fraction of the price and some people claim it produces even better shots than the Canon.
     
  5. mdntcallr macrumors 65816

    mdntcallr

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2000
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
    yeah dont be afraid of buying tamron or sigma lenses.

    they frequently provide great results. also always buy a good UV lens filter.
     
  6. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #6
    Make sure you get one of the "good" Tamron 28-75 mm lenses. Some of them come off the assembly line with a bit of a focus problem. QC issues with production of this lens. Don't know why it still happens.

    I have a Sigma 24-70 mm f/2.8, and it's excellent. It's not supposed to be as sharp as the Tamron 28-75 mm, but I don't think anything is supposed to be. ;) It's supposed to be even sharper than the Canon 24-70 mm f/2.8L, but that's not their sharpest lens. I'm sure the 17-40 mm is just as sharp as the Tamron, or sharper.

    Unfortunately, not only is the quality control a bit of an issue with the Tamron, but it also feels a bit cheap in terms of build quality. That's just my opinion, though. For an f/2.8 lens that goes to 75 mm, it's very light in weight and small, which is a plus in some people's eyes. My Sigma is built like a tank, and weighs as much as a tank. The better option is really up to you, but I like the bigger size of my Sigma. :eek: I don't even mind that it's not as sharp as the Tamron. The Sigma is still a very sharp lens, even at f/2.8.
     
  7. kevinliu4 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    #7
    How about the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM?

    Between this and the Tamron 28-75mm, which one would you want? Assume for now, price doesn't matter.

    We're talking quality, versatility and the fact that I now have an EF 50mm f/1.4.
     
  8. SpankyPenzaanz macrumors 6502a

    SpankyPenzaanz

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #8
    the 28-105 is crap get the 100 2.8macro - its my everyday allpurpose lens - its unbelievabley sharp and so fast.
     
  9. SpankyPenzaanz macrumors 6502a

    SpankyPenzaanz

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #9
    both of those i tried and still own the 28-135is and mediocre at best
     
  10. extraextra macrumors 68000

    extraextra

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #10
    Agreed with the others, mediocre lens. You're either going to have to increase your budget, or go 3rd party if you want a good lens! I'd recommend the Sigma 17-70, it served me well when I had it! I sold it for the 24-70L. :eek:
     

Share This Page