Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249

    XT kit lens vs EF 28-105

    I will be purchasing an XT shortly. I was going to start with the kit lens, but do you think I would be better off getting the EF 28-105mm? I also thought about the Sigma 18-125mm - any recommendations?
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    The 28-105 will miss some wide angel end... for the rest it will be a very nice lens to start with. How about both the kit lens and the 28-105?
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    4,498
    I was seriously considereing the 24-105 L f/4 IS...the bit of extra wide angle is more noticable than you would think. But in the end, I couldn't/wouldn't part with the cash...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by JTL
    I was seriously considereing the 24-105 L f/4 IS...the bit of extra wide angle is more noticable than you would think. But in the end, I couldn't/wouldn't part with the cash...
    I'd go with the 17-85 for a normal kind of range if I was stuck with just one lens. Either that or the 17-50 Tamron.

    Really, with a 1.6 crop dSLR 17 isn't IMHO wide enough BUT it's adequately wide for most people. I prefer a range from 12 - 200mm although that's covered by several lenses.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    6,590
    We just had a whole thread about how the 17-85 is not a good lens, ESPECIALLY for the money. *sigh*...

    Not that a certain someone will read that, since i am on ignore.

    But anyway, try and avoid that EF-S 17-85, it is NOT** a great lens, and even that 18-125 Sigma will give more pleasing results.
    The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is just a real bargain in Canon's lens lineup. If you use the kitlens for now for when a bit more wideangle is needed, you will have a lot of pleasure with the 28-105.

    **Sorry for making Clyde choke on his cornflakes with my typo. well... you can not really call it a typo, when you miss a whole word!
    Last edited by coldrain; 04-23-2006 at 09:38 AM.
    Canon EOS 350D, Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 macro, Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC EX, Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM, Tokina AT-X124 Pro 12-24mm F4, Soligor 1.7x C/D4 DG Teleconvertor, Manfrotto 724B tripod, Canon Powershot S30

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    .....The 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II is just a real bargain in Canon's lens lineup. If you use the kitlens for now for when a bit more wideangle is needed, you will have a lot of pleasure with the 28-105.
    I know the kit lens is only an extra $100, but I was trying to get away with just one lens for now. My wife is already harassing about this purchase!!!

    What about the Sigma 18-125? - but I've heard that the Canon 28-105 is a better quality lens. Any personal experience with these lenses, especially versus the XT 18-55 kit lens?
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chico, California most of the time
    Posts
    180

    17-85 Is Usm

    I have the 17-85 IS and like it as a walk around utility lens. It is inconsistent occasionally but I have had some good shots with it. I like the focal length range and it's light. The color is OK and usually easily tweeked in some photo editing software. It is a little soft sometimes for landscape and articture. But, I really like it for portraits. I borrowed a 24-70 2.8L which was very sharp. I was considering it for a walk around lense. However it was too heavy to carry around all day, and a little overweight for my Rebel XT. It also lacked the extra mm on the wide end. So, lens choice is always a tradeoff. One of my frustrations has been to find a good lense of any focal lenght. The more lens reviews I read, the more I am convinced that You need to try some lenses to see what you like. A month ago I orderd the 24-105 4L IS. I did some comparison shots, using my 17-85 IS as one of the comparison lenses. I sent the 24-105 back for another copy. With the new copy, the 17-85 again performed better. I sent the 24-105 to Canon for calibration. It came back and I did another lens test. Again I sent the 24-105 back to Canon repair, where it is at this time. I have a couple of other stories with Tamron lenses, but I won't bore you with those. Bottom line: try some different lenes to find what works for you.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by coldrain
    But anyway, try and avoid that EF-S 17-85, it is a great lens
    you mean, isn't, right?
    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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,807
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelb
    I know the kit lens is only an extra $100, but I was trying to get away with just one lens for now. My wife is already harassing about this purchase!!!

    What about the Sigma 18-125? - but I've heard that the Canon 28-105 is a better quality lens. Any personal experience with these lenses, especially versus the XT 18-55 kit lens?
    it seems us canon users are having more autofocus problems with 3rd party lenses like tamron and sigma. if you wanna go with the sigma 18-125 and this is really all you can buy then maybe you'd do better with a nikon d50. it seems the nikon users aren't having any issues with AF using sigmas.
    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
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amherst, MA
    Posts
    3,249
    Maybe I should just go with the 18-55 kit lens and a 50mm f1.8 prime to really learn the camera.
    I really like to take portraits and the 50mm would be great for that - especially low light shots.

    Part of me would really like the 28-105 though - I've read some excellent reviews on it.

    How is the performance of the kit lens vs the 28-105?

    flip-flop, flip-flop!!!!
    Last edited by michaelb; 04-22-2006 at 05:52 PM.
    Michael B.
    Canon 5D2, 550D, Sony NEX 5N, Sigma 15mm fish, 24L mkI, 35L, 40mm f/2.8, 50 1.8 II, Sigma 50 1.4, Sigma 50mm f/2.8 macro, 60mm macro, 100mm f/2, 70-200 f/4, 200 f/2.8 mk I, Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, 430EX. Growing list of MF lenses!

Posting Permissions

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