Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101

    Unhappy Lenses - Help!!!

    Ok, so here's the deal

    I've been going over the options 28-105 vs 28-135, going back and forth. I finallly figured IS would be more useful on a tele. Looked at the 70-300 IS. Love it so far, except the vertical problem, which I will just have to test my copy for. So thought about combining this lens with the 28-105 and felt pretty happy (got a financial break this week which means I could buy the 70-300). The filter size is also the same.

    Then I read someone saying something about the 24-85, slightly wider, 100 euro more, pretty much the same optically and build-wise, but strange filter size. Is the wide worth it, I thought? Discusses it with my dad, he asked if there was any alternative. I said, well the 17-85, but that's 550 euro! And I've heard mixed reports about it. Looked into it more and more and it's still mixed though there are plenty of happy owners too. Edit: just too much bad in terms of price quality to justify, taking this one out (that's one down...)

    The downside of the 28-105 is that the delivery time is unknown, which could mean months, while the 24-85 and 17-85 are both in stock. Which means I could settle this in two weeks (when I'm gonna be near the store) with one of the latter two. On the other hand I've sort of become partial to the 28-105 because it just seems solid in quality (not much variation), combined with cost and filter size. It's just sacrificing wide angle. And I'm not too fond of the idea of yet another lens to fill that up, not just because of the hassle but also dust issues. I just can't estimate right now what the wide angle would mean to me.

    Long story short:
    28-105 f/3.5-4.5? (222 euro)
    24-85 f/3.5-4.5? (319 euro)
    17-85 IS f/4-5.6? (549 euro) Out, see below
    Combining this lens with the 70-300 IS f/4-5.6
    Perhaps get the 18-55 secondhand for 50-70 euros as a backup for wide?
    Last edited by kvdnberg; 04-02-2006 at 06:35 AM.
    Karin van den Berg
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (Ordered)
    Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Canon Powershot G2 / Canon Powershot A520

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    just in case you missed it, i wrote a few lens reviews here: http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15252

    i was saying that the 28-135 is soft, but the 17-85 is WORSE! and costs way too much. jamison55 gave up on his pretty quick too and i think jeff keller mentioned somewhere that the 17-85 was lacking as well. i'm thinking that you could also pick up 18-55 kit lens (really ain't that bad IMO, not for the cost) to temporarily cover the wide end, or one of those ultra-wides that start between 10-12mm if you've got more $$$ to throw around.
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Ok, the 17-85 is definitely out. I just hear too much bad in terms of price/quality.

    Still leaves the choice between 24-85 and 28-105. I am considering now to try and get the 18-55 secondhand, just as a backup for wide.... But perhaps I'll wait with that a while.
    Karin van den Berg
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (Ordered)
    Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Canon Powershot G2 / Canon Powershot A520

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Georgetown, KY
    Posts
    1,627
    Quote Originally Posted by kvdnberg
    I am considering now to try and get the 18-55 secondhand, just as a backup for wide.... But perhaps I'll wait with that a while.
    You should be able to pickup used fairly cheap. While the 18-55 does have its limitations, it is capable of good shots.
    Dennis

    Canon 5D
    Canon 20D


    Georgetown, KY Photographer
    Retouching

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    Found another option in the 'hunt'

    How's about the 'new' Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC MACRO?
    I've seen several people posting shots and they all look good, 2 reviews that say it's a decent lens for the price, no reports of real problems as of yet (one person who's got backfocus at 17 but others who don't). I'd also like to do some macro and it seems to do good in that too.

    I just want to make the right decision on this since this will be my general purpose lens.
    Karin van den Berg
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (Ordered)
    Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Canon Powershot G2 / Canon Powershot A520

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Birmingham, England
    Posts
    28
    When I bought the 350D, I got it with the kit lens, so I do have something to cover me at the wide end. I knew trying to work out what my next lens should be would be 'tricky' so getting the kit lens was enough to get me started...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    101
    I am sometimes thinking I should have gotten the kit instead of body only but then again, that's another lens. I just really didn't like the sound of it by the way other people reviewed this lens.

    I think I might try if I can find a store around where I can do a side by side test with the Sigma 17-70 and the Canon 28-105. Not sure if I'll be able to find one that has both in stock AND is willing to let me test them without immediate purchase but I'm gonna try. If the 28-105 is better, I'd just rather have that one I think.
    Karin van den Berg
    Canon EOS 30D
    Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
    Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II (Ordered)
    Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM
    Canon Powershot G2 / Canon Powershot A520

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by kvdnberg
    I am sometimes thinking I should have gotten the kit instead of body only but then again, that's another lens. I just really didn't like the sound of it by the way other people reviewed this lens.
    I always recommend people buying their first Canon DSLR get the kit lens. I did and it's still one of my most used lenses. In fact I just did a another series of older buildings here in Los Angeles exclusively with the kit lens and they came out great (I'll be posting them shortly - just waiting for the smoke to clear from Jennifer's photos that I posted yesterday ) As many of you know, I recently had 16X24 enlargements made from shots taken with the kit lens and they look magnificent - good enough to sell. So while the kit lens has it's limitations (specifically, too slow for low light shooting and a little soft wide open at the long end of the zoom) I think it's worth the xtra $100.
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by 24Peter
    In fact I just did a another series of older buildings here in Los Angeles exclusively with the kit lens and they came out great (I'll be posting them shortly

    hey do you live right in the middle-ish area of LA or do you drive there? (though you mentioned beverly center). i'm always reluctant to drive over there because even if i miss traffic going there i hit it on way back. that's at least two hours each way minimum when there's traffic
    canon 17-40 L, 70-200 f2.8 L, 400 f5.6 L, 50 f1.4 & f1.8, 1.4x TC, sigma 15 f2.8 fisheye, flash 500 DG Super, kenko extension tubes

    note to self: don't participate in sad, silly threads unless you're looking for sad, silly responses.

    "anti-BS filter" (from andy): http://dcresource.com/forums/showpos...94&postcount=4

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,109
    Quote Originally Posted by ReF
    hey do you live right in the middle-ish area of LA or do you drive there? (though you mentioned beverly center). i'm always reluctant to drive over there because even if i miss traffic going there i hit it on way back. that's at least two hours each way minimum when there's traffic
    I'm pretty much in the middle (of the Westside at least.) Beverly & La Cienega is a few blocks away and for those interested in entertainment industy trivia this intersection was (and still is) considered the center of the universe at least as far as actors go. The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) had it's headquarters there for many years and when actor's rates for things like travel and accomodations and I guess even worktime were to be calculated when working on location, the location's distance from this intersection was the determining factor. How's that for meaningless (unless you're a member of SAG) trivia.

    ReF - a donde esta?
    Canon A720 IS, 40D w/ BG-E2N, 28 1.8, 50 1.4, Sigma 70 2.8 macro, 17-40 F4 L, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-200 F4 L IS, 430 EX, Kenko 2X TC & Ext Tubes, AB strobes and more...
    View my photo galleries here: imageevent.com/24peter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •