Best everyday lens for full-frame camera?

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!

24-105 gets my vote. Very nice lens overall. There's no way the 28-135 is better unless its a very good copy of it vs a bad copy of the 24-105.
--
JL Smith
www.flickr.com/photos/jl_smith

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!

Before you go buying a new lens, have your current lens checked by a competent repair person. I had an 80-200 f2.8 AF on my Nikon D300 when I got hit by a pair of lineman after the whistle. I thought the camera and lens were fine afterwards, but it never seemed as sharp afterwards. Seems the blow twisted the lens mount and damaged the AF. $250 later, a $1000 lens was working like new.

I have this lens and it's lovely the second I'd recommend is the sigma 50 but I do a lot of low light stuff (with fast moving objects) and like a little subject isolation if you aren't to fussed by these things (and the low light is only an issue when your subject is moving quickly) then 24-105 all the way

and the constant F4 aperture is useful when the light drops. It has some barrel distortion but that's easily dealt with and it's sharp and contrasty throughout it's range. As a normal range walkabout zoom with excellent quality it's hard to beat IMHO.

I've used my friend's 28-135 and own the 24-105, I borrowed his lens when I was making this decision as well, and the 24-105 is clearly better.  Way better build, and better image quality.

I REALLY wish Canon had put IS into the 24-70 f2.8 II, then this would be a no brainer other than cost.  The 24-105 is VERY useful, it's not the best at anything, but it's pretty solid all around, good build, and reasonably priced.

I do like the Tamron 24-70 f2.8 VC, and I've been tempted by it as well.

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!

As others have said ... 24-105 is a great walkaround lens ... well made, not heavy with good range, speed, sharpness, contrast and colours.

The 24-105 is in a totally different league to the 28-135 ... and yes, I have had both - 2 copies of each.

I had the 24-105 on a crop camera because I thought the f/4 would be fast enough for my uses but it turned out it was neither fast enough nor sharp enough. So I replaced it with the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and what a difference! The Tamron really is sharp and in low light situations the f/2.8 makes enough difference that I take fewer shots just trying to get a good one. I also have a 70-200 f/4 IS that I'm soon replacing with the 70-200 F/2.8 II for the speed and sharpness. Next on the agenda is a 70D to replace my old 20D. Its too bad that they are all so #$%^ expensive.

The Tamron is certainly enticing if one can swing the cash.  Many would argue that neither is a particularly good choice on crop though.  Certainly both of your problems with the 24-105 are going to be worse on crop than on 35mm.  F4 on 35mm has the DOF and noise performance of f2.8 on crop, for instance, and the lower pixel density allows is less demanding on optics.

F1 Forever wrote:

I had the 24-105 on a crop camera because I thought the f/4 would be fast enough for my uses but it turned out it was neither fast enough nor sharp enough. So I replaced it with the new Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC and what a difference! The Tamron really is sharp and in low light situations the f/2.8 makes enough difference that I take fewer shots just trying to get a good one. I also have a 70-200 f/4 IS that I'm soon replacing with the 70-200 F/2.8 II for the speed and sharpness. Next on the agenda is a 70D to replace my old 20D. Its too bad that they are all so #$%^ expensive.