Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Alternative to Canon EF 28-135 IS USM

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default Alternative to Canon EF 28-135 IS USM

    Hi All,

    Been looking around for a lens to replace my EF 28-105 and was considering the above lens. But there must be some other alternatives to the EF 28-135 out there. I have been getting mixed reviews on this lens, some love it, some hate it...

    I intend this to be my main lens and I do use the full focal range for many of my shots. I use a Canon 10D.

    Was also looking at the new Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 IF. Any thoughts on that one or other models you'd recommend?

    Thanks

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    Tamron 24-135 is a well-regarded lens in the range. Sigma's one was said to be quite soft from what I read from dpreview.

  3. #3

    Default

    get the Tamron 24-135

    better coverage on 10D and better image quality than 28-135IS and the sigma

  4. #4

    Default

    err..
    Tamron 28-75?

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaGixShOe
    get the Tamron 24-135

    better coverage on 10D and better image quality than 28-135IS and the sigma
    price wise? If the tamron 24-135 outclasses the canon then why do some people still buy the canon?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fooey
    price wise? If the tamron 24-135 outclasses the canon then why do some people still buy the canon?
    One reason could be that CAnon has USM on the len while the Tamron ... well...
    hmm...
    wellll....

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    448

    Default

    price wise? If the tamron 24-135 outclasses the canon then why do some people still buy the canon?
    Well, Canon one got USM and IS which some people think they worth the price.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    129

    Default

    Well checking prices the tamron retails at a price similar to the canon on adorama, approx US400. you get macro 1:3.3 at 135mm for the tamron but for canon you get USM and IS... members opinions?
    tamron http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=1346
    canon http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=325
    Last edited by fooey; 2nd December 2003 at 09:00 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fooey
    Well checking prices the tamron retails at a price similar to the canon on adorama, approx US400. you get macro 1:3.3 at 135mm for the tamron but for canon you get USM and IS... members opinions?
    tamron http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=1346
    canon http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=325
    U get Tamron about <S$600 in Singapore.... I think .....

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default

    The Tamron 24-135 does have a lot of consistent positive reviews, unlike the Canon 28-135. I think most folks buy the Canon for its name... that "cannot buy third party lenses" syndrome.

    Thanks for your contributions everyone.

  11. #11

    Default

    other than USM and IS, the Tamron is a winner is almost every aspect. the price comes with hood too

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default

    Thanks again for all your replies.

    I originally went and purchased the Canon 28-135. Brought it home and did about 20 test shots to comapre it against my EF 28-105 and 17-40L. My god, the lens was so soft, especially wide open. I couldn't get a sharp image out of it at all in various lighting conditions. I ranked it last amongst the 3 lens I used, really disappointing. Even the 28-105 beat it in terms of overall sharpness, needless to say the 17-40L beat everything else!

    I fretted for quite a bit but called the shop to see if they were willing to exchange it for the Tamron 24-135.. they said no problem... but then, had to give up my bargaining rights. So I went and exchanged it for the Tamron (probably paid $50 above market price) and now I'm writing out this note to all of you... it's a wonderful lens indeed. Thanks to the many kind folks who recommended it. The build quality is much better than the EF 28-135 and the sharpness is way above what I could achieve with the Canon under similar conditions. It was more than $200 cheaper too! And with a free hood!

    You can add me to the list of satisfied users. I can foresee this being my main lens from now on, I'd readily recommend it to anyone.

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    HOME
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Terence
    Thanks again for all your replies.

    I originally went and purchased the Canon 28-135. Brought it home and did about 20 test shots to comapre it against my EF 28-105 and 17-40L. My god, the lens was so soft, especially wide open. I couldn't get a sharp image out of it at all in various lighting conditions. I ranked it last amongst the 3 lens I used, really disappointing. Even the 28-105 beat it in terms of overall sharpness, needless to say the 17-40L beat everything else!

    I fretted for quite a bit but called the shop to see if they were willing to exchange it for the Tamron 24-135.. they said no problem... but then, had to give up my bargaining rights. So I went and exchanged it for the Tamron (probably paid $50 above market price) and now I'm writing out this note to all of you... it's a wonderful lens indeed. Thanks to the many kind folks who recommended it. The build quality is much better than the EF 28-135 and the sharpness is way above what I could achieve with the Canon under similar conditions. It was more than $200 cheaper too! And with a free hood!

    You can add me to the list of satisfied users. I can foresee this being my main lens from now on, I'd readily recommend it to anyone.
    How does it compare to your canon 28-105? Thanks

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    I'm a Llama!
    Posts
    4,751

    Default

    I think the 28-105 is still value for money, especially if you can get a second hand set for about $350. It is much lighter and smaller than the Tamron, and the USM is a plus. The Tamron motor can be a tad noisy which may irk certain people.

    Focusing on the Canon is also a little quicker. Optics wise, the Tamron beats the Canon, but not by much. The 28-105 does require good light to come up with some stunning shots whereas the Tamron seems to be able to function quite well in most light conditions. Both lenses seems to be sharp throughout the entire focal range, even wide open.

    If I didn't have the $ to spend, I'd go for the second hand 28-105. But fork out about $220 more and you'd have yourself the 24-135. I think it's a good investment which will last many years.

  15. #15

    Default

    how is the build of the tamron 24-135? is it solid ?
    Is the auto focus much slower than canon 28-135 ?
    how much is it sold here in sg?

    and looks like this lens is wider... another plus than canon one

    Thanks

  16. #16

    Default

    How much is the tamron 24-135?

    Oh yeah, and the apeture range too
    Canon EOS 5D Classic | Minolta X-700 | http://flickr.com/photos/zeus

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    12,938

    Default

    it's less than $600. Aperture range is F/3.5-5.6

  18. #18

    Default

    Yah, I think the best alternative for canon 28-135 is the Tamron 24-135, AF is fast but noisy, and very well built.

  19. #19
    Senior Member ivor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    SINGAPOUR
    Posts
    1,369

    Default

    Sorry, guys... I can't help notice that Tamron 24-135 f/3.5-5.6 seems to be the main subject for this thread.

    Does that mean the Sigma 24-135 f/2.8-4.5 IF mentioned in the early part of the thread is not good at all. The rating in Photography Review printed 4 of 5.

    http://www.photographyreview.com/PRD...5_3128crx.aspx

    Both the Sigma & Canon have a min focus distance of 50 cm while Tamron has a min focus distance of 40 cm.

  20. #20

    Default

    oh!
    so rare to find someone who admits tamron over canon way to go!!!

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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