28-135 IS vs 24-105L help

Started Aug 28, 2012 | Discussions thread
bronxbombers
Forum ProPosts: 18,226
Like?
Re: 28-135 IS vs 24-105L help
In reply to alecto25, Aug 28, 2012

alecto25 wrote:

Hi, I'm new to this whole dslr thing and I'm looking at getting a camera and lenses. Camera wise I'm debating between the 7D, 60D and t3i. I'm leaning towards the 7d.

I want to take pictures of everything. I'm going to Hawaii and will be whale watching but also want to take pictures of landscape, etc. The use of the camera will be for my enjoyment and I may throw up some pictures on those stock photo sites at some point. But primarily, it's just for me and not a business. I also plan on going to Australia in the near/distant future and taking the camera into the outback, beaches, jungle, etc and thought the weatherproofing might be nice to have.

So I'm thinking of getting the 70-300L for my whale, animal, surfing pics and the 11-16 tokina for my landscape shots. I've been hearing the 11-16 is sharper than the canon 10-22 and saving money is kinda important since I am spending my Christmas bonus before I even get it lol.

So that's where I come to the debate between the 28-135 and 24-105L. Obviously the L is a better lens and would complement a FF better if I ever get one many, many, many years down the road. I would use the lens as a primary walk around lens. I'm looking at the refurbished ones from the Canon site and if I bundle with the 7d, the 28-135 only costs about $150 more to add the lens as opposed to $750 more if i get the 24-105. I'm leaning towards the 28-135 to save on the cost so that I can more readily afford the other lenses. Should I rethink something? Will I notice a big difference for going with the cheaper lens? Thoughts on going for a cheaper camera (t3i) and getting the better lenses? I've been proing and coning myself to death and I just don't know.

It depends how you shoot of course, but many find those two not the ideal focal length for APS-C walk around. It's ok, but I prefer to be able to go a bit wider. I didn't think the 28-135 IS was all that great. The 24-105L was kind of mediocre of an L IMO (although it's more on FF where it suffers at the edges at the wider end than on APS-C where the edges are fine, but it just seems a bit pricey for aps-c and i think there are better options, some are both better and cost less.)

I'd look at stuff like:
Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC
Canon 15-85 IS
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Canon 18-55 IS if you want to go the save money route

if you get the 28-135 cheap enough in a bundle you might be able to sell it for a modest profit (but check prices and make sure to account for various selling fees)

you might be able to put off the super wide 11-18 type lens, it depends, quite a few people don't actually like to shoot that wide, that often, but perhaps you will, just make sure you do and you are not just randomly getting it for no particular reason other than someone said you need an ultra wide, if you really do like those types of shots, then sure go for it of course

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow