Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t257491-rethinking-canon-28-135-to-24-70-f2-8l.html)

Bill 06-02-2004 03:20 AM

Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I have
28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.

I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
sharpness.

I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".

Any opinions?

Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.

Mike Jenkins 06-02-2004 03:56 AM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
Several stores in L.A. area rent "L" lenses. Try Samy's, BelAir, ProFoto in
Irvine, etc
"Bill" <bill@notatt.net> wrote in message
news:40BD4753.B0211C59@notatt.net...
> I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I

have
> 28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
>
> I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
> the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
> the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
> the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
> sharpness.
>
> I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
> before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.




JIM 06-02-2004 05:06 AM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
"Bill" <bill@notatt.net> wrote in message
news:40BD4753.B0211C59@notatt.net...
.....<cut>....
> I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
> the range and it's relatively inexpensive. ....<cut>....Though I'm

cringing at
> the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping ....<cut>.... Any opinions?

.....<cut>....

Another consideration is the 1.6x factor. Not a great deal to choose
between, but the 28 looks like almost a 50 in 35mm while the 24 gets you
around the look of a 38mm. I have found that, 'usually,' getting closer is
easier than backing up - especially indoors........

Shoot'em up, wide/long, sharp/blurred, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest
will love you for it!!

Jim



John J 06-02-2004 08:07 AM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
> I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
> the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
> the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
> the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
> sharpness.



I don't have the 28-135 but I do have the 24-70 and I can highly recommend
it. You'll get over the cost eventually...
JJ



Phil Wheeler 06-02-2004 11:47 AM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
Also Paul's Photo in Torrance.

Mike Jenkins wrote:
> Several stores in L.A. area rent "L" lenses. Try Samy's, BelAir, ProFoto in
> Irvine, etc
> "Bill" <bill@notatt.net> wrote in message
> news:40BD4753.B0211C59@notatt.net...
>
>>I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I

>
> have
>
>>28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
>>
>>I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
>>the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
>>the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
>>the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
>>sharpness.
>>
>>I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
>>
>>Any opinions?
>>
>>Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
>>before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.

>
>
>



Brian C. Baird 06-02-2004 12:38 PM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
In article <40BD4753.B0211C59@notatt.net>, bill@notatt.net says...
> I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I have
> 28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
>
> I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
> the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
> the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
> the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
> sharpness.
>
> I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
>
> Any opinions?
>
> Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
> before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.


The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
at less than $500.

John J 06-02-2004 01:21 PM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
> The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
> of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
> at less than $500.


Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.

How do I know this, well that's another story...

Regards
JJ



Brian C. Baird 06-02-2004 04:58 PM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
In article <c9kk9l$1h9h$1@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>, blahblah@pobox.com
says...
> > The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
> > of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
> > at less than $500.

>
> Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
> notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
> few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
> results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
> advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
> would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
> something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
> along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
> conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.
>
> How do I know this, well that's another story...


'Softness' with the 28-135mm USM IS is really a matter of opinion. If
he thinks its soft because other people have said so (read the post
carefully), he might not realize the lens could fill his needs for less
than the L lens. The only way for him to make the determination is to
try both lenses and keep the one he thinks will work best for him. Many
camera stores in the US are glad to let you try or rent lenses, so it
isn't critical he makes the right choice the first time.

If you dislike the 28-135mm fine. It doesn't take razor sharp pictures
of newsprint like a L lens. But it costs a third as much and the IS
comes in handy for those of us with shaky hands. In the right hands,
great photos can result from this lens. There is no reason for the
original poster not to try out the lens and see if it suits his needs
and budget better than the 24-70L.

John J 06-02-2004 09:38 PM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 


>The only way for him to make the determination is to
> try both lenses and keep the one he thinks will work best for him.


Yes, it's the best way.
JJ



Warren Jones 06-02-2004 09:39 PM

Re: Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L
 
If the op finds the Zuiko 28mm and 50mm lenses "soft", then nothing short of
the best "L" lenses will satisfy! A 50mm f1.8 Mk I would give the 28mm Zuiko
a good run at same approx. FOV, and still is my 'must have' lens for the
10D.

"John J" <blahblah@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:c9kk9l$1h9h$1@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
> > The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
> > of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
> > at less than $500.

>
> Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
> notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
> few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
> results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
> advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
> would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
> something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
> along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
> conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.
>
> How do I know this, well that's another story...
>
> Regards
> JJ
>
>





All times are GMT. The time now is 04:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.