Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Derek Fountain" <nospam@example.com> wrote in message
news:422fed9b$0$22830$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> I've been looking at these 2 Canon lenses for use on a 20D, and it appears
> people are happy with both. A friend of mine has the 105mm version on his
> 10D and raves about it. I was looking at getting one, but since it would be
> the longest lens I own (at least for quite a while) I was veering towards
> the 135mm IS version.
>
> Does anyone have experience of both, and is therefore in a position to offer
> either objective and subjective comparisons? My walkaround lens is going to
> be a 17-40L so I'm somewhat more interested in the long end than the short.

I have both, and would recommend either...though if asked which ONE lens I'd settle on, it
would definitely be the 28-135.
The IS is incredibly effective in low light and slow shutter speeds, and the optical
quality is quite good for a non-L zoom.

A couple of things to keep in mind...
The 28-105 was originally designed specifically so that it would not interfere with
built-in flash (like on the Canon A2).
It has a smallish front-end which teh flash will easily clear.
The 28-135, on the other hand, has a very large front end, which will partially block the
built-in flash on some cameras.
The 20D's built-in flash rises higher than my 10D, so this might not matter so much, but
it definitely blocks it on my 10D.

I don't care one way or the other, because I NEVER use the built-in--opting instead to
reach for the 550EX.
It's become an automatic reflex when I reach for my camera for snapshots to mount the 550.

The main reason I kept the 28-105 at all was for the rare occasion where my wife wanted to
carry my camera somewhere. For her, I'd take the grip off, mount the 28-105, and safely
assume that she wouldn't want to haul the 550EX around. For small+light+simple, it was a
good combination. For everything else...the 28-135 IS was ALWAYS my choice.

You might be surprised how little "reach" is added between 105 and 135mm. Try it in store
and see for yourself.

Anyway... If it were me... 28-135 without question.
If you want small, light and portable, with built-in flash, then the 28-105 is a good
alternative.
-Mark

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tony wrote:

> Go for the 28-135 unless you have a lot of 62mm filters. It is the better
> lens and has IS.
>

I don't quite know what you mean here... The 28-105 uses 58mm filters.

Yes the 28-135 is better, (you *can't* beat IS , but some people have
budgetary constraints and would be willing to forgo the IS if the
image quality were similar.

Just a note to the original poster.. There are two versions of
the 28-105. One is f/3.5-4.5 the other is f/4.5-5.6

The slower lens isn't as good.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:RZOdnY0qmrfqEq3fRVn-qA@golden.net...
> Derek Fountain wrote:
>
>>I've been looking at these 2 Canon lenses for use on a 20D, and it appears
>>people are happy with both. A friend of mine has the 105mm version on his
>>10D and raves about it. I was looking at getting one, but since it would be
>>the longest lens I own (at least for quite a while) I was veering towards
>>the 135mm IS version.
>>
>>Does anyone have experience of both, and is therefore in a position to offer
>>either objective and subjective comparisons? My walkaround lens is going to
>>be a 17-40L so I'm somewhat more interested in the long end than the short.
>
> I'm confused. Why would you want to consider these midrange lenses when
> you intend to use the L glass as a walk around lense - it seems you're
> doing it backwards? I doubt you'll be happy with the results of them
> when you compare it to the 17-40 L lense.
>
> Or do you simply want more reach than the 17-40 offers? If so, I would
> suggest you look at the 70-200 f/4 L lense.

The range between 40mm and 70mm is too impmortant to exclude like that--especially
considering that this is the most commonly used range for most people, so would NOT
recommend this.
The 70-200 is a fine lens, but not having that mid range will drive him nuts.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:a9mdnXFaCN7qrqzfRVn-vA@golden.net...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>>>I've been looking at these 2 Canon lenses for use on a 20D, and it appears
>>>>people are happy with both. A friend of mine has the 105mm version on his
>>>>10D and raves about it. I was looking at getting one, but since it would be
>>>>the longest lens I own (at least for quite a while) I was veering towards
>>>>the 135mm IS version.
>>>>
>>>>Does anyone have experience of both, and is therefore in a position to offer
>>>>either objective and subjective comparisons? My walkaround lens is going to
>>>>be a 17-40L so I'm somewhat more interested in the long end than the short.
>>>
>>> I'm confused. Why would you want to consider these midrange lenses when
>>> you intend to use the L glass as a walk around lense - it seems you're
>>> doing it backwards? I doubt you'll be happy with the results of them
>>> when you compare it to the 17-40 L lense.
>>>
>>> Or do you simply want more reach than the 17-40 offers? If so, I would
>>> suggest you look at the 70-200 f/4 L lense.
>>
>>The range between 40mm and 70mm is too impmortant to exclude like that--especially
>>considering that this is the most commonly used range for most people, so would NOT
>>recommend this.
>
> That depends on the intended subjects and why I asked for clarification
> from him.
>
> For instance, a person who shoots mostly wide angle landscapes may not
> care about a 300mm telephoto lense. Just as the wildlife nut may not
> care about 28mm landscapes. And a portrait nut may not touch either end
> of the spectrum.
>
> It's all relative, and that's why I mentioned other alternatives such as
> the primes to cover what's missing.
>
>>The 70-200 is a fine lens, but not having that mid range will drive him nuts.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you two were identical twins and you could
> tell what he's thinking.

There's really no need for mind-reading to understand that this will severely limit a
person.
But look, Bill...I was NOT intending to harp on you.
I was simply pointing out that the most basic, all-around range that is considered
essential to just about ANY set-up (40mm-70) was missing from that formula. I'm not sure
what the point would be in disputing this observation.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>>>The 70-200 is a fine lens, but not having that mid range will drive him nuts.
>>
>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you two were identical twins and you could
>> tell what he's thinking.
>
>There's really no need for mind-reading to understand that this will severely limit a
>person.
>But look, Bill...I was NOT intending to harp on you.

I didn't take it as such...hence the smiley in my post above.

>I was simply pointing out that the most basic, all-around range that is considered
>essential to just about ANY set-up (40mm-70) was missing from that formula. I'm not sure
>what the point would be in disputing this observation.

My point was obvious...the users' needs may not be the same as yours or
the general "formula". You can make suggestions, but you can't make a
blanket statement that it will definitely be a problem for everyone.

I don't follow the formula, nor do most of my SLR shooting friends. They
each have their own type of shooting and the lenses in their camera bags
reflect that.

As it happens, the OP wanted a basic lense for the extra stuff, and his
primary shooting will be wide angle. No big deal.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:evGdncEl4rkyQazfRVn-rQ@golden.net...
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>>>The 70-200 is a fine lens, but not having that mid range will drive him nuts.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I didn't realize you two were identical twins and you could
>>> tell what he's thinking.
>>
>>There's really no need for mind-reading to understand that this will severely limit a
>>person.
>>But look, Bill...I was NOT intending to harp on you.
>
> I didn't take it as such...hence the smiley in my post above.
>
>>I was simply pointing out that the most basic, all-around range that is considered
>>essential to just about ANY set-up (40mm-70) was missing from that formula. I'm not
>>sure
>>what the point would be in disputing this observation.
>
> My point was obvious...the users' needs may not be the same as yours or
> the general "formula". You can make suggestions, but you can't make a
> blanket statement that it will definitely be a problem for everyone.

Please note the words, "just about" above. Pretty accurate, too.


> I don't follow the formula, nor do most of my SLR shooting friends.

Congrats...but there is nothing "formula" about recognising that the range from 40mm -
70mm is a focal length one would do well not to ignore.
That you want to cast my comment into some "formula" characterization is just silly and
unnecessary.
If you get some sort of charge out of limiting what perspective and field of view is
available to you when you shoot--even the most frequently needed range--more power to you!
Most folks don't want to limit the possibilities open to them in that way.
"Formula" has nothing whatsoever to do with this question.

>They
> each have their own type of shooting and the lenses in their camera bags
> reflect that.

> As it happens, the OP wanted a basic lense for the extra stuff, and his
> primary shooting will be wide angle. No big deal.

Hooray.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'm selling my 28-135 on ebay right now