Will i see much difference from...

Johnpartridge

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 24, 2006
126
0
Hi, i am currently using a Canon EF 28-80mm Lens on my Canon 10D.

I was wondering if purchasing a Canon EF 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM would give me any better results/Would i see much difference in quality?

John Partridge
 

snap58

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2006
310
0
somewhere in kansas
Johnpartridge said:
Hi, i am currently using a Canon EF 28-80mm Lens on my Canon 10D.

I was wondering if purchasing a Canon EF 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 USM would give me any better results/Would i see much difference in quality?

John Partridge
Good reviews on most Canon and some 3rd party lenses at this site. He recommends spending another $100 bucks and go for the 28-135 IS?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/
 

FleurDuMal

macrumors 68000
May 31, 2006
1,802
0
London Town
davegoody said:
Depending on the type of photography you are into, the inclusion of IS makes a HUGE difference, well worth the extra expense !:)
But only if you shoot a lot in low light and without a tripod, surely?
 

davegoody

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
307
58
Nottingham, England.
Maybe . . . . .

FleurDuMal said:
But only if you shoot a lot in low light and without a tripod, surely?
Of course if you ALWAYS shoot in low light and without a tripod it is a godsend, my point is that having it (IS) means that you have to think less about when you need to have a tripod and therefore have more time to think about the actual shot you are trying to take. As an example I am a Wedding photographer, I predominantly use the Canon 28-300 f3.5 - 5.6L lens (a Huge lens but very versatile) - the IS means that if I move position to take some shots under the canopy of a tree etc, the IS gets me the shot first time round without having to go and fetch my tripod / monopod etc. In any case, IS is disabled if a tripod is used (presumably to save battery life as on a Canon IS drinks battery power).

Hope this clears things up a bit !:confused:
 

Johnpartridge

macrumors regular
Original poster
Feb 24, 2006
126
0
Hi everyone, thanks for the reply's so far.

I am still left unsure, as no one has really answered my initial question, would it be worth me buying the 24-85mm USM ? to replace my 28-80mm??

I'm asking because ive seen one near me which i could purchase 2nd Hand.

John Partridge
 

snap58

macrumors 6502
Jan 29, 2006
310
0
somewhere in kansas
Johnpartridge said:
Hi everyone, thanks for the reply's so far.

I am still left unsure, as no one has really answered my initial question, would it be worth me buying the 24-85mm USM ? to replace my 28-80mm??

I'm asking because ive seen one near me which i could purchase 2nd Hand.

John Partridge
You could start by reading the reviews from the above link and see what you think. Then maybe you could test the lens (since it is near you) and compare the pictures with your current lens?
 

Dark

macrumors regular
Aug 22, 2005
209
5
New Jersey
I just bought this lens and I love it. Definately improvement over the kit lens. I posted about a week or two ago and got somewhat of a response but not was I was looking for at all so I just decided to buy it. Worth every penny.
 

madmaxmedia

macrumors 68030
Dec 17, 2003
2,923
32
Los Angeles, CA
Johnpartridge said:
Hi everyone, thanks for the reply's so far.

I am still left unsure, as no one has really answered my initial question, would it be worth me buying the 24-85mm USM ? to replace my 28-80mm??

I'm asking because ive seen one near me which i could purchase 2nd Hand.

John Partridge
It's very subjective. L lenses are definitely better, but a lot depends on your expectations and how you feel about your existing lens.

Keep in mind we don't really know for sure which lens you have. Canon has made various 28-80 lenses. Some are the crap throw-ins that come with film Rebels, etc. There is also at least one pretty good 28-80 with USM. These various lenses are often differentiated by their max aperture ratings. These 2 pages have some more info-

http://photonotes.org/reviews/ef-lenses/
http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm

For example, the EF 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM isn’t a bad lens. It has a metal lens mount, similar build quality to the EF 28-105 and fits into the second of the six tiers listed above. However, the EF 28-80 3.5-5.6 II USM is an all-plastic cheapie which fits into the first of the six tiers above. (all 28-80 3.5-5.6 lenses from marks II through V are plastic cheapies, in fact) The EF 50mm 1.8, as noted below, is generally considered to be a better lens than the EF 50mm 1.8 II.
Also, keep in mind most lenses are reasonably sharp at f10 or so. You're going to see the most difference at the lower apertures (maybe that's where you mostly shoot, maybe not.)

Also, a cheap prime is a great way to check out better optics. The Canon 50mm f1.8 is $70, and is sharper than any zoom lens this side of $400 to $500.

All that being said, if you can get that L lens at a great price, go for it! ;) If you can first take some sample pics with your 10D then that is highly recommended (good way to make sure it's working good)

PS- I own a Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM and am very happy with it. It is a good mid-range lens (around $250), and has that great ring USM focusing. I'd get an L if I could afford it, but given my price range and expectations I am very content.