PDA

View Full Version : Canon 20d Lens



ktixx
11-27-2004, 10:37 PM
I was wondering if anyone has used the Canon 28-105 USM II f/3.5-4.5 Lens (priced around $200). I am interested in purchasing this lens, but I would like to know how fast it focuses and how it performs in low light situations. Overall I have read that this is considered to be a "work horse" pretty much good for an all around lens. There is also another (better) lens that canon has 28-135 USM II IS (priced around $400) do you think it is worth the extra $200 dollars for the Image Stabilization on this lense? Keep in mind that I am going to purchase a 20d, 1gb memory card, extra batteries, cases and this lens all at the same time, so that $200 bucks makes a significant difference considering I am trying to keep the total cost as low as possible. I am well aware that the lens is just as important as the camera in picture quality. Any feedback is much appreciated.
Ken

ReF
11-28-2004, 12:50 AM
I have a pretty hard time finding reliable opinions or reviews about non L-glass canon lenses. If you get desperate, you can go on a site like epinions.com and look at the customer reviews and ratings. The 28-135mm IS got pretty good ratings and is not very expensive considering it's quality. don't know much about the 28-105 lens. Whether the IS is worth it or not is really your call. I assume that you bought a 20d because you want top notch pic quality; well the IS will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds instead of cranking up the ISO or allow the use of smaller apertures in dim lighting. For me, that kind of flexiblity is totally worth the $200. You didn't mention what kind of shooting you're likely to do. If it's studio and flash photography, then don't waste your money.

I forgot to mention that there is more to a lens than just focusing speeds/low light performance. Seemingly similar lenses can have huge differences in sharpness throughout the zoom and aperture range, while some have more flare and corner softness than others. Do try do get as many opinions as you can(or 1 very reliable one) on a specific lens before you buy, and do a google search if you have to. BTW you didn't mention the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens. A few of the people here helped me on that one (as well as the 28-135mm (thanks guys/gals)). The 50mm f1.8 is probably the sharpest lens you can buy for under $375 and it's only about $70!!

Arizona
11-28-2004, 03:12 PM
The Canon 50mm 2.5 macro is very sharp and distortion free for $240 at B&H. I just got that one and have been playing with it for a few days now.

http://photos.imageevent.com/boynhisdog/20dtest/SebbieWoodFrame.jpg

The 28-135 and the 28-105 are reputed to be quite soft from the users and that is what I see from their images. Some people do like them a lot though. Another lens I have been shooting witht he 20D is the Canon 85 1.8 which is very resonably priced at $340 and it is very sharp. For wide I have been using the 17-40 f/4L for about a year and it is very nice but way out of your target range right now. A camera as good as the 20D deserves good glass. I suggest getting just one lens for now and make it a good one. Save up and then add another good one in time.

Here is a site with info from the users. http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Zoom/PLS_3128crx.aspx

For primes look here http://www.photographyreview.com/35mm,Primes/PLS_3111crx.aspx

Lots of choices!

Arizona
11-28-2004, 04:57 PM
Here is another rating site that may be of some help.

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

ktixx
11-28-2004, 05:30 PM
I have a pretty hard time finding reliable opinions or reviews about non L-glass canon lenses. If you get desperate, you can go on a site like epinions.com and look at the customer reviews and ratings. The 28-135mm IS got pretty good ratings and is not very expensive considering it's quality. don't know much about the 28-105 lens. Whether the IS is worth it or not is really your call. I assume that you bought a 20d because you want top notch pic quality; well the IS will allow you to shoot at slower shutter speeds instead of cranking up the ISO or allow the use of smaller apertures in dim lighting. For me, that kind of flexiblity is totally worth the $200. You didn't mention what kind of shooting you're likely to do. If it's studio and flash photography, then don't waste your money.

I forgot to mention that there is more to a lens than just focusing speeds/low light performance. Seemingly similar lenses can have huge differences in sharpness throughout the zoom and aperture range, while some have more flare and corner softness than others. Do try do get as many opinions as you can(or 1 very reliable one) on a specific lens before you buy, and do a google search if you have to. BTW you didn't mention the Canon 50mm f1.8 lens. A few of the people here helped me on that one (as well as the 28-135mm (thanks guys/gals)). The 50mm f1.8 is probably the sharpest lens you can buy for under $375 and it's only about $70!!

First off let me say that I have yet to buy my camera, so that is why price is so important to me, second I have definitely thought of all the options you have listed above. I am definitely not going to do studio photography (at least not now) and when comparing the MTF charts the 28-105 and the 28-135 IS, are a pretty close match (with the 28-135 leading by a lens cap :p ).

28-105 = http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7442

28-135 = http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337

I have read a little about the 50mm f1.8 and I have definitely considered it, but I think that I will most likely purchase that at a later date. Most likely when all is said and done, I will probably spend the extra money on the IS lense, but I just wanted to hear some feedback on the 28-105 USM II f/3.5-4.5 lense (especially from people who own it) before I make my final decision. Thank you all for your help, I will take all the feedback I can get.

D70FAN
11-28-2004, 08:30 PM
I was wondering if anyone has used the Canon 28-105 USM II f/3.5-4.5 Lens (priced around $200). I am interested in purchasing this lens, but I would like to know how fast it focuses and how it performs in low light situations. Overall I have read that this is considered to be a "work horse" pretty much good for an all around lens. There is also another (better) lens that canon has 28-135 USM II IS (priced around $400) do you think it is worth the extra $200 dollars for the Image Stabilization on this lense? Keep in mind that I am going to purchase a 20d, 1gb memory card, extra batteries, cases and this lens all at the same time, so that $200 bucks makes a significant difference considering I am trying to keep the total cost as low as possible. I am well aware that the lens is just as important as the camera in picture quality. Any feedback is much appreciated.
Ken

Try not to loose sight of the fact that the lens you buy will be your day-to-day shooter. That being the case I'm not sure that 28mm is a good starting point, as now you are approaching 45mm (1.6X crop factor) on the WA end of focal length.

I tried the 28-300 from Tamron and found that I liked the long end at 450mm (on a D70), but 42mm (again on D70 with 1.5X crop) just was not wide enough for day-to-day use.

I shoot with an 18-125 Sigma DC and have had great results, to the point where I sold the very nice 18-70 Nikkor "kit" lens. I have tried image stabilized lenses, but find that under 150mm it really isn't necessary. Over 150mm is definately where IS shines.

Anyway it might pay to look at the Sigma 18-125 for your 20D. At less than $300 it's a pretty nice lens.

ktixx
11-28-2004, 09:27 PM
Anyway it might pay to look at the Sigma 18-125 for your 20D. At less than $300 it's a pretty nice lens.

I am sure this is info that I can find by reading reviews on the Internet, but how do the sigma lenses (specifically the 18-125 that you mentioned) compare to canon lenses. Is the focus speed and acuracy the same, better or worse?

Ken

D70FAN
11-29-2004, 05:52 AM
I am sure this is info that I can find by reading reviews on the Internet, but how do the sigma lenses (specifically the 18-125 that you mentioned) compare to canon lenses. Is the focus speed and acuracy the same, better or worse?

Ken

That's a good question, and I am assuming , from the short time that I spent with a 20D (and the 18-55 kit lens), that it is comparable to the kit lens. On the D70 it works as well as the Nikkor 18-70. Which is to say pretty quick.

Unfortunately there are very few reviews of the Sigma 18-125 DC so you just have to try it yourself. Most camera stores will let you return a lens.

Don't get me wrong, as I am not promoting Sigma lenses, but in this case I think the 18-125 DC is a nice, reasonably priced, lens for everyday shooting. And is typically a step above the normal "kit" lenses pushed by Nikon and Canon.

ktixx
11-29-2004, 11:36 PM
Try not to loose sight of the fact that the lens you buy will be your day-to-day shooter. That being the case I'm not sure that 28mm is a good starting point, as now you are approaching 45mm (1.6X crop factor) on the WA end of focal length.

What do you think about a combination between the canon 18-55 kit lense and the canon 28-105 usm II. From what I have read that canon 28-105 lens seems to be quite a great all around lens, but I definitely agree with you that the 44.8mm (28mm * 1.6) will cause problems if I want to get a more wide angle shot. From what I can tell the kit, compared to the body only canon 20d, is only a couple of bucks more. So basically I would be paying an extra $20 for the 18-55mm lense that I could attach only when it is needed. Do you think that combo of lenses would be better than a sigma 18-125mm? For some reason I trust the quality of canon more than sigma, but I have no experience with either so if someone can tell me different, please do :D

eagle17
11-30-2004, 10:48 AM
Let me start by saying all of my lenses are cannon at the moment. however I trust george when he says that the sigma is as good as the nikor. The nikor lenses are as good or better than the standard canon lenses that I have played with.

I am currently saving up for some better glass, but remember the really good cannon glass is $1400 and up... (with image stabilization)

D70FAN
11-30-2004, 05:59 PM
What do you think about a combination between the canon 18-55 kit lense and the canon 28-105 usm II. From what I have read that canon 28-105 lens seems to be quite a great all around lens, but I definitely agree with you that the 44.8mm (28mm * 1.6) will cause problems if I want to get a more wide angle shot. From what I can tell the kit, compared to the body only canon 20d, is only a couple of bucks more. So basically I would be paying an extra $20 for the 18-55mm lense that I could attach only when it is needed. Do you think that combo of lenses would be better than a sigma 18-125mm? For some reason I trust the quality of canon more than sigma, but I have no experience with either so if someone can tell me different, please do :D

One of the issues with dSLR's (except the new E300 from Olympus) is that they are succeptable to dust. Every time you change that lens, is another opportunity for contamination. Hence the one day-to-day lens idea.

Believe me you will find yourself changng lenses often with a 2 zoom lens system.

I do change my lenses about twice a week (using a 50mm f1.8 and 70-300 for specialty shots), and following common sense rules, I have yet to have a problem that could not be cured by blowing gently into the camera (to disloge a piece of dust).

Not trying to scare you here, just stating the only downside, I can think of, to owning a dSLR.

As Eagle17 so aptly states there are many lenses on the market that beat the Sigma in certain areas, but they cost 2 to 5 times more. It is not a pro grade, beat-the-heck-out-of-it lens, but with proper care it will take great pictures for a long time. Hopefully the 18-200 Tamron will be even better.

The final decision is up to you which is why I recommend trying, before buying. Hey it's $300 and returnable (check with the store on goofy restocking fees and etc.).

Bon Foto

timmciglobal
11-30-2004, 07:39 PM
Having owned both the 28-105 USM 2 and the 28-135 IS let me tell you there is a WORLD of difference. I think the 28-135 is a FAR better lens, sharpness wise, color wise and deffinitly with versility of the IS. You can easily handhold a shot at a MUCH slower speed, and often indoors use no flash in good light (for example in a room lit by regular lamps/lightning)

Plus consider that the 28-135 lens has FAR greater resell value, and it's got a 30$ rebate if you buy the lens and your camera between 15th oct and jan 30th in US.

Tim

wishbone
12-01-2004, 01:15 PM
I have been doing a lot of research as I am in a similiar position in researching camera's and lenses before deciding which camera system to go for. After handling the camera's, our choice is down to the *istDS and 300D (20D is too expensive, D70 was larger than my wife liked).

I've been pouring over forums and have decided if I go with the 300D, I am definitely getting the 28-135 IS USM, the 50 1.8, and the 75-300 IS USM in addition to the kit lens. I was worried that the 28-135 would not be wide enough, but I have found that I rarely go below 50 with my Minolta Dimage 5, so the kit lense should suffice for a wider lense when I need it. The general feedback on the 28-135 IS USM is very, very good.

If it was not for the rebates on the Canon system, I would be looking at different options. This combo generates $390 in rebates, total of camera and 4 lenses works out to $1400.

If I decide to go with the Pentax *istDS, I will be ordering the 18-125, the Sigma 70-300 APO II, and a 50 1.4 prime.

Good luck!