Canon Lens 28-105 or 35-135
Siegmar Strehlau
28-105 or 35-135 ????
Which is better ???
Atlantic77
photographers would recommend. I've used one for a couple of years and
*love it*. Buy it. IMHO it's the best mid-price lens Canon make.
Happy shooting!
SpaceMan Spiff
In article <31D4D2...@rodgau.netsurf.de>, Siegmar Strehlau <Siegmar....@rodgau.netsurf.de> wrote:
=> I want to buy a new Canon Zoom Lens.
=> 28-105 or 35-135 ????
=> Which is better ???
It depends on what you mean by "better".
I would suggest the 28-105 for the following reasons. It is one f-stop faster across it's entire zoom range than the 35-135, f 3.5/4.5 vs. f 4.5/5.6. It's minimum focal length is 28 mm instead of 35. If you do primarily recreational shooting, snapshot type of stuff of people or landscapes, the 28-105 is the better lens to buy. It's range is more practical and useful.
I would recommend the 35-135 if you do a lot of portrait work, or like to be able to get candid photos of people' faces. The extra 35 mm is nice for that. Other than that, it's the only advantage the 35-135 has over the 28-105.
I have used both lenses, and I chose to buy the 28-105. There are a few big reasons for this.
1) When using the 35-135, I found myself wanting to go back to 28 quite a bit, and couldn't do it. I was a real drag to have to physically walk back to a point where I got the perspective I wanted.
2) With the 35-135 when I would go all the way out to 135, it was almost always when I needed more focal length than 135.
3) The slower f-stop on the 35-135 caused me to lose a few shots in low light conditions when I was doing some theatre work, even with Fuji ISO 1600 color film, pushed to 3200. That too was a real drag.
My recommendation is to go with the 28-105. In my experience it is by far the better performing and more versatile lens. Pair it up with a 100-300 USM telephoto or a 75-300 USM II like I and my wife have, and you've got a great pair of lenses that are nice and fast, sharp, and versatile covering the whole range from 28-300mm.
Spiff.
Andrew Y. Ng
Siegmar Strehlau <Siegmar....@rodgau.netsurf.de> wrote:
>I want to buy a new Canon Zoom Lens.
>28-105 or 35-135 ????
>Which is better ???
DEFINITELY the 28-105!!
--
Andrew Y. Ng <ay...@platinum.com> 612-688-3033
Web Developer, PLATINUM technology, inc. (ViaTech Development Lab)
http://umn.edu/~ngxx0027
Talk: finger ngxx...@gold.tc.umn.edu for online status
Voice Mail: 1-800-526-9096 x7818
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/E/M/MU/PA/S !d-(++)@ s(-)>+: a--- C+++(++++)$@
ULUAVHISCX++(+++)$>++++ P++(+++)$>+++++ L++++(+++++)$ E(+)$ W+++$>$
N+>$ o+++>$ !K-- w--(++++)$@>+++ O(-) M+$@ V(++)$>+++ PS PE++>+++ Y+>+++$
!PGP--() !t !5 X++ !R tv-(--)? b++(+)>$
DI++>+++++ !D G++>+++$ e+(++)$@>+++++ h(+)>++ r(+)?>$ y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Hubert Wentzel
I own the 35-135 and have been using it for four years now. It is a superb
lens and I wouldn't "downgrade" to the 28-105 simply because of the focal
length difference. This will of course depend on the use you have for the
lens. I do all my studio, wedding and casual work with this lens. It is very
sharp (maybe not as fast as what a pro would expect, but on the other hand I
don't have the funds for the sub F2 lenses).
Hope this helps.
Jay Plater
I think that the extra 7mm on the short end would be more useful that the
30 on the long end.
Beatrice Graeber
According to the reviews (CAPA, PopPhoto), the Canon EF 28-105 USM is
optically, a little bit better than the 35-135 USM. I use the 35-135 and
have not used the 28-105, but I suspect that the difference is probably
only noticeable in photographs of U.S. Air Force optical resolution test
patterns. I am impressed with the sharpness of 8X12 enlargements taken
with my 35-135, at both ends of the focal range. For shooting parades,
the extra 20 mm at the long end of the zoom (135 vs 105) really helps.
Albert Lui
SpaceMan Spiff
In article <4rafjt$1m...@duvi.eskom.co.za>, Went...@mwp.eskom.co.za (Hubert Wentzel) wrote:
=> I own the 35-135 and have been using it for four years now. It is a superb
=> lens and I wouldn't "downgrade" to the 28-105 simply because of the focal
=> length difference. This will of course depend on the use you have for the
=> lens. I do all my studio, wedding and casual work with this lens. It is very
=> sharp (maybe not as fast as what a pro would expect, but on the other hand I
=> don't have the funds for the sub F2 lenses).
If you shoot a lot of people, then the 35-135 is the better lens, but that's not all I do, in fact it's a small part of my photography, and most people don't shoot just portraits and weddings. For most casual and even serious users, the 28mm is a bonus over the 35mm and the fact the 28-105 is a half to a full stop faster tells me *it's* the better lens of the two. I have used both lenses, and the lack of width and the slower f on the 35-135 are just too much of a drawback to me, but I shoot mostly architecture and landscapes, so.... there are some shots I can't get with that lens, I easily make with my 28-105. As such, I consider the 35-135 the 'downgrade'. If I need to go out to more than 100, I use my 75-300 USM II, which by the way has a max f the same as the 35-135, (4-.5.6), yet it has more than twice the focal length and range. If I ever need to go past 105, I'll always need to go past 135.
Spiff.