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

kevinliu4

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 8, 2006
160
0
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.
 

kevinliu4

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 8, 2006
160
0
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.
 

mdntcallr

macrumors 65816
Aug 1, 2000
1,450
120
yeah dont be afraid of buying tamron or sigma lenses.

they frequently provide great results. also always buy a good UV lens filter.
 

Abstract

macrumors Penryn
Dec 27, 2002
24,379
110
Location Location Location
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.
 

kevinliu4

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 8, 2006
160
0
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.
 

SpankyPenzaanz

macrumors 6502a
Sep 4, 2006
705
0
kevinliu4 said:
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.
the 28-105 is crap get the 100 2.8macro - its my everyday allpurpose lens - its unbelievabley sharp and so fast.
 

SpankyPenzaanz

macrumors 6502a
Sep 4, 2006
705
0
kevinliu4 said:
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.
both of those i tried and still own the 28-135is and mediocre at best
 

extraextra

macrumors 68000
Jun 29, 2006
1,758
0
California
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: