Which one?

Nozebleed

Hi. Im looking to buy a walk around lens..which one of these lens would be the better purchase? and should i buy new or second hand?

http://www.cameracentre.ie/lenses/canon/389/ef-28-105mm-f3.5-4.5-ii-usm

http://www.cameracentre.ie/lenses/canon/391/ef-28-135mm-f3.5-5.6-is-usm

Thecageyone

Does the extra 30mm at the longer end matter much to you? For €200 extra?

If not, definitely the smaller, lighter lens, it'll do exactly the same job as the pricier one, it's just a little shorter on the zoom end.

pete4130

They dint do the exact same job at all. The shorter lens is probably faster at 105mm than the longer lens at 105mm.

If your on a crop sensor that mere 30mm difference translates to nearly an extra 50mm in real terms. As these lenses are both EF lenses (full frame lenses) you might have a full frame sensor then 30mm is 30mm in real terms.

The difference in price for the longer lens comes down to it having IS (image stabilisation) which will compensate for it being a slower lens on the long end. This will help get sharper shots at slower shutter speeds but won't help freeze any motion (less ideal for sports perhaps?).

Years ago I had a 28-135 sigma 3.5-5.6 that had a macro function at the long end. It didn't have IS and I found it a little slow and 28mm frustratingly not wide enough.

If you could stretch your budget further there is the 24-105 f/4 L USM IS lens which would be faster focusing, an "L" lens so image quality would be far superior, as would build quality.

It's cheaper to buy up north/UK and while it is pretty much double the cost of the more expensive lens it is a good investment.

Other options would be something like a crop sensor lens such as an 18-105 or something in that range.

Canon do an 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS lens which is well within your budget. It is very similar in spec to the other lenses and is wider too, so if you are shooting with a crop sensor it's more ideal.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-S-18-135-3-5-5-6-Lens/dp/B002NEFLEG

bogmanfan

€700 will get you a 24-105 f4L on adverts.ie. A far superior lens to the 28-135, and I've had both.

hbr

Nozebleed wrote: »

Hi. Im looking to buy a walk around lens..which one of these lens would be the better purchase? and should i buy new or second hand?

http://www.cameracentre.ie/lenses/canon/389/ef-28-105mm-f3.5-4.5-ii-usm

http://www.cameracentre.ie/lenses/canon/391/ef-28-135mm-f3.5-5.6-is-usm

Either one should be ok. I notice the 28-105mm one has a plastic mount
while the more expensive one has a metal mount.

Are you sure that 28mm is wide enough for the shots you will
want to take? This will be equivalent to 42-45mm on a camera
with a crop sensor.

Mid range Canon zoom lenses are often available on adverts.ie
and eBay. You can save quite a bit by buying second hand.
There is a used 28-105mm on eBay at a buy-it-now price of
€82 + €12 shipping.
Item number: 300511063808

If you do decide to buy a new lens, you should shop around. The
28-135mm is about €300 on eBay.

I'm inclined to agree with pete4130. If you intend to spend as much
as €560 on a zoom lens, you would be better off looking for a
used L lens.

Thecageyone

They do pretty much the same job when all he wants is a walkabout lens ... that extra 30mm isn't going to provide much more that a little crop couldn't do. IS is a nice bonus, but for €200!?

If he wanted to shoot birds or distant subjects I imagine he'd be looking at longer telephoto. They're probably as fast as one another at 105, the 135mm will be about f/4.5-5 at that length. I know what i'd do, get a nice wide prime and a 50-250 with the IS if you could stretch to it. As I do believe IS is only really effective beyond 50mm anyway.

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

They do pretty much the same job

Straight up, they don't do the same job.

28-105 is faster, has no IS and is a shorter lens

28-135 is longer but has IS and is a slower lens and probably has more distortion than the 28-105

Other than having similar focal lengths they do not perform the same at all. 1/10th second handheld with both lenses at 105mm would prove this, as the IS on the longer lens would get sharper images. Hence, the do not pretty much do the same job.

The OP isn't shooting birds, he's looking for a walkabout lens so where did shooting birds come into the equation???

As for the 30mm not mattering, Jaysus...maybe you are right :rolleyes: .....all these years I've had a 50mm, an 85mm and a 105mm for different jobs....little did I realise the 85mm is roughly 30mm difference from both the 50mm and the 105mm.....sure I should have been using the 85mm for everything!! You could have saved me a fortune over the years with that advice....keep it coming :eek: :eek:

magicbastarder

hbr wrote: »

Either one should be ok. I notice the 28-105mm one has a plastic mount while the more expensive one has a metal mount.

that's astonishing that a lens costing several hundred euro doesn't have a metal mount. i know the standard 18-55 kit lens with the nikons is a plastic mount too, but at least that's less than half the price of the one above.

Nozebleed

thanks for the replies. i might hold off a while and look out for a second hand 24-105 f4L.

Effects

pete4130 wrote: »

As for the 30mm not mattering, Jaysus...maybe you are right :rolleyes: .....all these years I've had a 50mm, an 85mm and a 105mm for different jobs....little did I realise the 85mm is roughly 30mm difference from both the 50mm and the 105mm.....sure I should have been using the 85mm for everything!! You could have saved me a fortune over the years with that advice....keep it coming :eek: :eek:

I have a freind who told me I was stupid for getting an 85mm 1.8 as I already had a 50mm 1.4, he said what's the point in getting something longer. He also says tilt shifts are just gimmick lenses.

As for the 24-105L, I find it has a lot of barrel distortion which annoys me a good bit.

magicbastarder

speaking of which - talking to the OP - do you have a good fast prime?
i'd regard my 35mm 1.8 as being my best 'walkabout' lens. cheaper than the ones you're looking at, too.

Thecageyone

pete4130 wrote: »

Straight up, they don't do the same job.

28-105 is faster, has no IS and is a shorter lens

28-135 is longer but has IS and is a slower lens and probably has more distortion than the 28-105

Other than having similar focal lengths they do not perform the same at all. 1/10th second handheld with both lenses at 105mm would prove this, as the IS on the longer lens would get sharper images. Hence, the do not pretty much do the same job.

The OP isn't shooting birds, he's looking for a walkabout lens so where did shooting birds come into the equation???

As for the 30mm not mattering, Jaysus...maybe you are right :rolleyes: .....all these years I've had a 50mm, an 85mm and a 105mm for different jobs....little did I realise the 85mm is roughly 30mm difference from both the 50mm and the 105mm.....sure I should have been using the 85mm for everything!! You could have saved me a fortune over the years with that advice....keep it coming :eek: :eek:

Faster in what area? They will surely be both around the same at 105mm? And often people say lenses can be very soft at their maximum, better used pulled back a little, therefore the 135mm might actually be sharper at 105mm. But ... for €200 extra? And roll your eyes away, but if he's not looking for long zoom, then I doubt the 30mm extra on one will matter to him. Reminds me of someone else who gets stroppy because someone's disagreeing ... I'd say your parties are great craic

The 35mm f/1.8 mentioned would be a great choice for walkabout, cracker of a lens, I want one myself and I have that focal length covered with my 17-50 f/2.8, but you can't beat a prime at any length.

If and when you require zoom, may as well go a bit longer, like that 50-250 IS, popular lens among canon users I believe and I don't think it's expensive.

Or ... if you're not too fussy on it being Canon, look for something that covers more range, like this:

Tamron AF 28-300mm with VC

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

Faster in what area? They will surely be both around the same at 105mm?

Less glass in the 28-105 (15 elements as opposed to 16 so less light and as light loses a % of its intensity every time it passes though glass/a lens it makes the AF work harder), shorter barrel, both USM and lighter lens means the motor has less work to do...hence faster.

Thecageyone wrote: »

but if he's not looking for long zoom

The OP is looking for a zoom walkabout lens. This is obvious in his 2 initial lens choices being zoom lenses and his choice to wait out for a 24-105 f/4

Thecageyone wrote: »

... for €200 extra?

Yes, for £200 extra you get IS and a lens that has better build quality. You get what you pay for.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Or ... if you're not too fussy on it being Canon, look for something that covers more range, like this:

Tamron AF 28-300mm with VC

If you have ever used a super zoom like this, then you'll know its a jack of all trades and master of none. Lots of distortion at both ends, slow to focus, poor autofocus in low light and image quality from 3rd party manufacturers can be questionable.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Reminds me of someone else who gets stroppy because someone's disagreeing ... I'd say your parties are great craic

Please keep your posts on topic and remember not make it personal. Thanks.

Thecageyone

You should take your own advice on that last one laddy. You just seem to be forcing your opinion in a ... "please do what I suggest" type of way.

I personally wouldn't use a super zoom, I prefer to change lenses on the go, you'll always get better quality that way. But it's not about me.

I've given good suggestions, up to OP now.

pete4130

TCO,

I have merely given advice to the OP. I made some suggestions and it seems like he's taken some of my advice on board regarding the 24-105 L lens, which I think is a good choice.

Thecageyone wrote: »

You just seem to be forcing your opinion in a ... "please do what I suggest" type of way.

I can't see how I've been forceful. I've given good advice from my long personal experience regarding good and bad glass.

Thecageyone wrote: »

I personally wouldn't use a super zoom, I prefer to change lenses on the go, you'll always get better quality that way. But it's not about me.

I've given good suggestions, up to OP now.

The OP didn't even mention a super zoom so your point about a super zoom is a moot point.

Thecageyone wrote: »

You should take your own advice on that last one laddy.

Again, I'll ask you not to get personal with patronising comments like that please.


Aplogies to the OP that this thread has gone slightly off topic. I think the 24-105 f/4 L is a good choice and I'm sure you'll be happy with it.

Thecageyone

You seem to just offer any alternative to what I suggest, you quote everytime to disagree, again, nobody is right or wrong, they are only suggestions.

Nobody patronising here either, so why do you keep trying to make out like there is?

GhostInTheRuins

If it's between those two lenses, definitely go for the one with the IS, and the build quality is much better by the looks of it too. It's probably worth the €200 extra for the IS alone, you can't beat an extra two or three stops.

TelePaul

Pete4130 wrote:

Again, I'll ask you not to get personal with patronising comments like that please.

Thecageyone wrote: »

You seem to just offer any alternative to what I suggest, you quote everytime to disagree, again, nobody is right or wrong, they are only suggestions.

I think you guys need to get it together already, you could cut the sexual tension here with a knife :pac:

TelePaul

GhostInTheRuins wrote: »

If it's between those two lenses, definitely go for the one with the IS, and the build quality is much better by the looks of it too. It's probably worth the €200 extra for the IS alone, you can't beat an extra two or three stops.

This would be my thinking too. The extra reach, the IS functionality and the improved build quality mean that it's a better lens, but only you can decide if it's better to the tune of 200 sheets. For me, it is. Think it'd be a great walk-about lens.

sNarah

{moderator note}

Once more, a friendly reminder about dominating threads and getting stuck on opinions. Personal digs are certainly not on, whether or not intended humerous.

Off you go now, back to talking about a lens that I know nothing about so can't give you any advice OP!

Nozebleed

magicbastarder wrote: »

speaking of which - talking to the OP - do you have a good fast prime?
i'd regard my 35mm 1.8 as being my best 'walkabout' lens. cheaper than the ones you're looking at, too.

i do have the 50mm 1.8 canon lens. but i like the idea of having a little extra range in a lens..not sure why. probably down to inexperience..framing etc.

5uspect

I've found this site to be good for stats on lens performance.
http://dxomark.com
In partiular they give T-stop data which is often used in Cinema. T stops, unlike f-stops, take the light transmission of each lens. So a lens with a lot of elements loses a lot more light.


28-135

24-105L