I am purchasing a canon ElanIIe and trying to select a few good lenses. I am currently considering between the canon 28-105 USM 3.5-4.5 and the canon 28-135 3.5-5.6USMis for my short-end zoom. I will be using this during a lot of traveling, hiking etc. Weight is a concern. I enjoy photographing landscapes, architecture and architectural detail. Don't shoot a lot of portraits. Also I am looking to find a (now discontinued) canon 70-210 3.5-4.5 USM. Has anyone had experience with any of these? Are there better choices I might consider in this general range? Thanks in advance for your comments!!

-- Baxter Harris (bebop1@sprintmail.com), December 10, 1998

Answers

I would stay away from the consumer zooms. They often have a fair amount of distortion, which would be most undesirable if you are interested in architectual photography. One time I took a seascape with my 28-200, and the ocean bent upwards on both sides!

-- Nick Stevens (nickstevens@hotmail.com), December 10, 1998.

Unfortunately, I have never used either of these lenses. When I bought my Elan IIe I bought the 28-80 USM. Decent close focus images at 80mm, but that's about all it does really well. The 28-105 has an excellent reputation, and the new 28-135 has been said to be just as good by those who have used both. If you are planning to cover the 70-210 or 75/100-300 range anyway, the only thing to choose is whether you need 'IS'. I have the 75-300 IS, and would hate to give it up, but I'm not quite conviced stabilization is needed for a 28-135, although if you are really steady handheld shots at 1/6 - 1/8 second should be possible at 28mm. I think I read 1/4sec somewhere, but I'm not sure, and it seems like a bit of a streach to me. If you have the money, go for it. It will work as advertised, and since Canon only claims that you can hand hold at a shutter speed 2 stops slower than normal it may work better than advertised, depending on how steady your hands are.

Are there better choices in this range? Quality yes, price probably not. The 28-70 f2.8L and 70-200 f2.8L (both USM) are well known for being almost as sharp as prime lenses (some even claim they are sharper, but lets be realistic, they are still zooms) but they are very expensive and very heavy. The only other thing I can think of, is since the 28-135 covers such a wide range, get it, skip the long zoom and get the 200 f2.8L. It is reasonably priced, and should be a good bit better (and easier to find) than the 70-210, and maybe even as good or better than the 70-200 f2.8L, but I have never seen a direct comparison. I doubt you will find very many situations where the 65mm gap between 135 and 200 will be as important as the sharpness of a 200mm prime.

-- Brad (reloader@webtv.net), December 11, 1998.

I made about 60 percent of the photos in my book "Rock City Barns: A Passing Era" (look it up at amazon.com) with the EOS 28-105. The photos have been mistaken for 4x5 work by a number of professionals. The 28-105 is also my main wedding lens. At one time I owned both the 28-105 and the 28-80L lens. After using both for some time, I sold the L. It was sharper at the edges, but I did not consider it enough better to justify carrying around the extra bulk and weight. The 28-105 is a very sharp, very practical lens. Unless you're prepared to carry a lot of bulk and weight and shoot everything from a tripod, which I think negates the flexibility and spontaneity which is the main reason for using 35mm, you're not going to be able to tell much difference between the better consumer lenses and the L lenses. The quest for ultimate sharpness is not what photography is all about, anyway.

-- Dave Jenkins (ljenkins@vol.net), December 13, 1998.

Baxter-

I've had the 28-105 for over a year now, and I love it. It does a great job. Sure, its a bit slower than I'd like at 4.5, but I don't have the money for a 28-70 f/2.8, and I don't want to carry it anyway (its HUGE!). I'd recommend the 28-105 absolutely. As for the IS or not, thats up to you depending on whether or not you have the money and think that you'll need it (I haven't needed it yet!).

As for the a longer lens, definitly go with the 70-210 over the 75-300. I have a 100-300 which is ok, but I rarely use it. My brother has a 70-210, he loves it, and I've borrowed it a few times and been extremely pleased with it. The hard part is going to be finding one (ie having the patience to wait for one to come around). Good luck though...

-- Jason Fobart (jason@fobart.net), December 17, 1998.