kamundse wrote:
Hello all,
I have the 28-135mm IS but I am noticing that more often my pictures are not in focus and the IS doesn't turn on anymore either. I have taken it all over the world and it has been banged about pretty good a few times and it has been exposed to all kinds of weather. Before I repair/replace the lens, I thought I would find out what other people are using.
I am looking for something with a decent range so I can minimize weight in my daypack by not carrying multiple lenses. I have a wide-angle that I usually carry with me so if anything I'd rather have more telephoto than wide. It also needs to be fairly durable since it is going to get a lot of use hiking/traveling.
I have read good reviews of the 24-105mm but several that say, while the 24-105mm is good, they think the 28-135mm is better.
Thanks!
24-70 II no doubt, but that is $$$ and somewhat heavy
IMO 24-105 is mediocre for an L and has poor edges on the wide end on FF at 22MP level of the current Canon FF never mind on any future 40MP bodies, that said I is definitely better than the 28-135, especially on FF.
My tamron 28-75 2.8 was sharper than my 24-105 on FF though and cost a lot less (of course that was when the tamron used to cost $300 and the 24-105 $1100 now they are getting close in price) but the AF was MUCH slower and it lacks IS.
24-70 f/4 IS is not as good as the 24-70 II but it is better than the tamron 28-75 2.8 and 24-105L. The $1500 price for it is a bit of a rip-off though, however a few have been on sale for $1100-1200, although the prices seem to have gone back up too high again on it now. It also has a built-in macro of sorts and is pretty small and compact.
Tamron 24-70 vc is supposed to be pretty good. it is large and heavyish though.
as for tele (i actually consider 24-70 lenses wide to standard on FF but then I was never one of those all crazy about UWA so for me the 24-70 is my wide angle) 70-300L is awesome way to get FF reach although tamron 70-300 vc is a decent way and costs a ton less.