1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Tamron 24-135 vs Canon 28-105 / 28-135 IS

Discussion in 'Canon Conflab' started by tamos, May 29, 2002.

  1. tamos

    tamos Member

    I'm after a new all-singing all-dancing autoeverything SLR which I won't hand control over to. Among the current favourites is an EOS 30/33. Canon's 28-105 and 28-135 IS don't seem to be that highly regarded. I can't afford their L range but want a good zoom for convenience when travelling. Would I loose out on anything by getting a Tamron 24-135. Autofocus speed? Increased noise? Any camera functions? This lens seems popular with reviewers and users alike but not having the kit to try out for more than a few minutes in a shop it's hard to tell.

    Any comments? It's likely to be my only lens for this camera for a while.

    Thanks.
     
  2. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Actually, the 28-135 generally is pretty highly regarded by reviewers, and is certainly thought of as at least the equal of the Tamron. Throw in the Image Stabiliser, and despite the loss of 4mm at the wide end, I think it's the best choice. The 28-105 is OK, but not quiteas good as the other two, and the 24-85 likewise. The other, cheaper Canon standard zooms aren't very good at all.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  3. Bawbee

    Bawbee Well-Known Member

    There was talk of Canon introducing a 24-135 IS this year. this was on the EOS list and from a 'usually' reliable source. If you really need the 24 then wait a while. If the 28-135 will suffice, then wait a while, if the 24-135 IS does come out, the price of the 28-135 IS will drop.

    I have the 28-135 and it only comes off the body when I attach a prime or telephot zoom. I was one of the sceptics of IS, but I wouldn't do without it now.

    Bawbee
     
  4. Lounge_Lizard

    Lounge_Lizard Well-Known Member

    > Canon's 28-105 and 28-135 IS don't seem to be that highly regarded.

    It's not what I've heard.

    David
     
  5. rkilpin

    rkilpin Well-Known Member

    same here!

    <font color="#0077FF">All this talk of cameras and gadgets confuses me.
     
  6. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    Optically the Tamron is good but I think the Canon edges it out on speed of AF and of course that wonderful IS on the 28/135. Optically there is nothing to choose between them. Go for the Canon is my advice. It's got those two little extras in it's favour.

    BigWill

    <font color=red>Epitaph for BigWill: He debauched, he drank, he died!
     
  7. Billericay

    Billericay Well-Known Member

    Haven't used any of these sets of lenses, but... The 24-135 was highly regarded in a review by our own illustrious publication, and I think people often underestimate the benefits of wide vs long - I certainly would favour eg a 24-105 over a 28-135, so a 24-135 is even better! If you buy the Canon, you might want to go wider at some point, and that will mean doubling up in lenses with eg a 19-35mm, but with the Tamron, you're unlikely to want to go wider later.
     
  8. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Richard, I would agree with you about the benefits of going wider, BUT IS is SUCH a boon. It's well worth having if you're hand holding. Although the optical quality of both these lenses is similar, you can stop down two stops more with IS - which can make the end result better.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  9. parisian

    parisian Well-Known Member

    That's really p*ssed me off now because the only lens I could afford when I bought my 33 was the 28 - 90 that came with it. Oh well time to start saving or get the missus back on the streets. Mind you at her age and with her hip and everything it could take a while
    In between times I will shove as many films through it as can to get my moneys worth from Mr.Canon.
    PS. It's not really that bad is it? compared to say the olympus trip I had before

    Quantum mechanics have very, very small tools!/img/wwwthreads/smile.gif
     
  10. BigWill

    BigWill Gorgeous oversensitive Nikon-loving cream puff

    It's not bad at all Peter. In fact I would say it is actually pretty good. Just not in the same league as the 28/135 which is very good. I have the slightly older 28/80 USM which I have no complains about and which has always turned in a fine optical performance. OK so it ain't a summicron, but shit, we ain't perfectionists like that sad Leica lot are we!

    BigWill

    <font color=red>Epitaph for BigWill: He debauched, he drank, he died!
     
  11. dogbyte

    dogbyte In the Stop Bath

    Quite a few of us use the Canon lens I think and we all like it. I'd agree the IS feature has got to be far more use than an extra 4mm at the wide end - how many shots after all will work at 24mm but not at 28mm? Again a number of users have reported a better than 2 stops advantage. Also thee's always the worry about compatibility of third party lenses in the future notwithstanding rechipping facilities.
    The Canon is a wopping great 72mm (don't know about the other) so you'll probably need to budget for new UV and polariser filters. What is good filter wise though is that a Cokin holder maintains its plane whilst you zoom in and out - can't remember the technical term for that!
    I haven't seen any bad reviews, just the occasional comment from Prime diehards who make Bin Laden look like a hippy.

    Pete IRIPN
     
  12. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    The acid test is what do you think?
    (Which Trip - the original, or one of the more modern clones? Because the lens in the original Trip was pretty good, but the more recent ones less so).

    Look at http://camerasystems.info/showmsg.jsp?id=1011274A&forum=32767 for a discussion on this very topic, this very day.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  13. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    Pete, I disagree strongly about the extra 4mm - I would love it to be that much wider. I use Canon 28, 50 and 135 primes as well, and at any given aperture they're (sometimes only slightly) better. BUT with IS, you can shoot at, say, f8 with the zoom as against f4 for the prime and still hold it safely - result is that the zoom gives better quality.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  14. Billericay

    Billericay Well-Known Member

    Not having used IS, I can but defer!
     
  15. Benchista

    Benchista Which Tyler

    It's definately one of those things you don't believe until you try it. I was a sceptic (or is it a septic?), but it really works.

    Nick BSRIPN
     
  16. Straightarm

    Straightarm Well-Known Member

    The Canon 28-105 takes 58 mm filters. You can probably get away with using Cokin A series filters on it.

    **What is good filter wise though is that a Cokin holder maintains its plane whilst you zoom in and out - can't remember the technical term for that!**

    I think the term you were looking for is "non-rotating front element"
     
  17. Canonball

    Canonball Well-Known Member

    Or even "Internal Focusing" /img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    Geoff
     
  18. Mario

    Mario Well-Known Member

    Go for the IS!! It really is superb and you will find it a boon for traveling with if you dont/cant use a tri/mono pod

    Mario Greppi LRPS IRIPN
    http://www.dreamphotos.org
     
  19. Mario

    Mario Well-Known Member

    Yup I agree with Will. I have a mk2 28-80 and it served me well for a while. It's not as good as my 28-135... but thats like saying pamela anderson is better in bed than dot cotten. Pamela is better but also more expensive!

    Mario Greppi LRPS IRIPN
    http://www.dreamphotos.org
     
  20. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    "Any comments? It's likely to be my only lens for this camera for a while."

    Tamos,

    You have chosen 3 good lenses but I think you have to at several factors:
    a) How much money do you have (not want) to spend?
    b) Is lens size going to be factor?
    c) What are you going to be shooting, for the most part?

    Regarding the Tamron 24-135:
    Several staff of the (camera)shop where I work(?) have bought it and have
    been very happy with it. As have all the customers who have purchased this
    lens. The only (minor) complaint has been the size and add-on filters can
    be a tad expensive and somewhat slow(f3.5-5.6) Cost in CDN $ is about $750.00 w/ taxes.

    The Canon 28-135 IS lens: very similar to the Tamron 24-135 except that it is
    about $ 875.00 CDN w/ taxes but will quieter when focussing and is very sharp.

    And, lastly, the Canon EF 28-105 USM lens which is the least expensive of the
    bunch (and has been coming down in price lately) is now about $400.00 CDN w/taxes. It is also the fastest (f/3.5-4.5) and will be equal to the IS lens
    in accuracy,speed and silence in focussing. The only place where it loses
    something to the IS lens is in "(possible) use in low light shooting" and the
    only place it loses anything to the Tamron lens is the "angle of view".

    The only other lens I would throw in the foray is the new small (62 filter size)Tamron 28-200 XR lens. It is the same speed as the IS lens and Tamron 24-135
    and the focussing speed/noise will be the same as the other Tamron lens. But,
    where it makes up for that is the size and price (sort of) as it sells for about
    $570.00 CDN w/ taxes. I have a Tamron 28-200 (Pentax mt) and I have very happy
    with the images I have got from it, the only drawback I have to say is that on
    occasion I wish it were just a tad faster and that is only when I shoot to quickly and don't take time to see what 'shutter speed' I am shooting at and
    get 'shakey' images.

    There, having said all that: If I were you I would probably go for the:
    First: the Canon EF 28-105
    Second: the Tamron 28-200 XR lens
    Third & Fourth are tied: Canon 28-135 IS and Tamron 24-135 lens.

    I hope this is somewhat helpful and you are still awake after reading all
    this information.....but you can blame Clive who taught me to write long,
    detailed posts/img/wwwthreads/wink.gif.

    Cheers,

    Jack/img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    not digital but film, so far, but digital is
    starting to seduce me.
     

Share This Page