Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005.

  1. 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.
     
    Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Derek Fountain

    Mark² Guest

    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
     
    Mark², Mar 10, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Derek Fountain

    Tony Guest

    Go for the 28-135 unless you have a lot of 62mm filters. It is the better
    lens and has IS.
     
    Tony, Mar 10, 2005
    #3
  4. Derek Fountain

    Bill Guest

    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. It's bigger than the others
    obviously, but it's also a lot better and it's not outrageously priced.
    Or if you want something small, how about the 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 prime
    lenses. You won't have zoom, but you'll get that reach you may be
    looking for.

    I have the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 and use it as a walk around for snaps at
    various events and social functions. It's a pretty good lense, but when
    I want serious keepers, like group, posed, or similar shots, I use the
    good glass.
     
    Bill, Mar 10, 2005
    #4
  5. Derek Fountain

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Mar 10, 2005
    #5
  6. Derek Fountain

    Bill Guest

    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.
    I'm sorry, I didn't realize you two were identical twins and you could
    tell what he's thinking. :)
     
    Bill, Mar 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Derek Fountain

    Mark² Guest

    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.
     
    Mark², Mar 11, 2005
    #7
  8. There's really no need for mind-reading to understand that this will
    Now now, children. <grin!>

    Bill's original assertion, that I might need a bit more reach than 40mm, was
    correct. I tend to concentrate on the wide end, so 17-40mm should suit me
    just about right on a general basis. My second lens will be the 10-22mm
    EF-S.

    I rarely use even the (105mm equivalent) "long" end of my S40 P&S, so
    wouldn't want to spend a serious amount of money on a DLSR lens of that
    sort of range. But, on occasion, I do need it, so having a well regarded
    midrange lens which at least allows me to get *a* shot, as opposed to no
    shot at all, seems like a sensible idea. Sounds like the 28-135mm IS is the
    one to have, so thanks to everyone who pointed me in that direction.
     
    Derek Fountain, Mar 11, 2005
    #8
  9. Derek Fountain

    Bill Guest

    I didn't take it as such...hence the smiley in my post above.
    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.
     
    Bill, Mar 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Derek Fountain

    Bill Guest

    We're not fighting...we're discussing. :)
     
    Bill, Mar 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Derek Fountain

    Mark² Guest

    Please note the words, "just about" above. Pretty accurate, too.
    :)
    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.
    Hooray.
     
    Mark², Mar 12, 2005
    #11
  12. Derek Fountain

    Tony Guest

    Sorry - I tend at times to screw up numbers - I meant 58. All of my filters,
    for example, are 58mm so buying the 28-135 IS for me would also involve
    buying several larger filters to go with it.
     
    Tony, Mar 12, 2005
    #12
  13. I'm selling my 28-135 on ebay right now
     
    David Griffin, Mar 12, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.