Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 863 posts, RR: 1 Posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16833 times:
Okay...I'll be purcahsing a new lens in the coming weeks to replace my sh*tty 28-85mm that came with my Canon Rebel G. I've got it narrowed down to two choices (both Sigma lenses):
A 28-105 rated at f/2.8
A 28-200 rated at f/3.5
I'd love to have the extra reach of the 200mm, but I've been living with 85mm for so long that I wouldn't mind staying with something short. ESPECIALLY if I would notice a big difference in quality with the faster 2.8.
SO...in a nutshell: will I notce a big difference in replacing my slow standard lens with a faster 2.8? If not, I'll just get the 200mm.
Jormy From Finland, joined Jan 2000, 231 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 16791 times:
The lenses you were talking about were actually:
AF 28-105 f/2.8-4.0
AF 28-200 f/3.5-5.6
So both lenses open only to their maximum aperture at short end, not when shooting for instance at 100mm.
When reading those lenses on paper I could really guess that the 28-105 is better because of it's shorter zoom ratio, which is always a good thing. But after checking the results from photodo.com I can say I'm wrong. The 28-105 gets a result 2,4 and the 28-200 gets 2,7. So both lenses are not very good but 28-200 is sharper than 28-105. You should also notice that the 28-80 you already have gets a grade of 2,9 so it's actually sharper than those Sigmas. (5,0 is maximum points)
If I were you I would consider buying Canon's instead of Sigma's. Besides of better optical quality you get the full-time manual USM focusing. EF24-85USM and EF28-105USM are much better lenses than the EF28-80 you have and they are not even much more expensive than the Sigmas. If you feel a need for extra range I would recommend you buy a separate tele-zoom instead of the 28-200. Canon's EF75-300 is for instance very good and cheap lens.
btw. f3.5 is only half a stop slower than the f2.8. For example: 1/125s at f2.8 with 28-105. 1/90s at f3.5 with 28-200.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 779 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 16754 times:
So much depends on what you want to use it for - in my opinion, both lenses are pretty slow for the focal length when used at the extreme end of the range - a 200mm at f5.6 is gonna be a struggle with slow film on a dull day - plus there is no way this lens will be at its best wide open.
F27 From Australia, joined Oct 2001, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 16752 times:
I agree about bying the cannon lenses the sharpness and quality is just great. I have just bought the canon cameras and lenses but used to use pentax and the comparison is just chalk and cheese. Never ben so happy
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 16745 times:
You won't find a big difference on the short end, it's the long end that really counts when considering fast lenses. With a wide-angle to medium telephoto zoom you are probably shooting static aircraft with limited movement and plenty of light (i.e. ramp). However, when it comes to long shots, the lens speed becomes more important. Faster lenses allow faster shutter speeds, especially when attempting to capture movement.
In the 80-200 or 70-210 range, max lens aperture is significant; but below that you can deal with a slower lens. This is even more evident if you shoot extreme wide-angle shots. When you shoot those you are looking for extra depth of field and that requires a smaller f-stop anyway (as in the f/8-f/11+ range).
Scooter From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 863 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 16728 times:
Wow...thanks for the good info guys! Based on what I've read (and researched via photodo.com), I've decided to skip on the Sigma lenses. I think the smart thing to do is wait a little longer to save up for a faster zoom...
Until then, I'm more than happy to keep experimenting (and learning) with what I have now.
Sia jubilee From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2000, 145 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (14 years 4 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 16710 times:
I have got a Sigma AF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DL.
and also a Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8.
I understand what do you ask. I think the 28-105 2.8 you mentioned is Tamrom,right?
I have to advise you: the 28-105 (either small aperture such as 3.5-4.5/5.6) must better than 28-200 super zoom on both resolution and performance.
About the dirrerent between 2.8 and 3.5
Basically, they have not a big different if you compare on the same lens.
And also with two lens used their Maximum aperture.
Every of Maximum thing on Camera, lens are not the best performance.
So normally I will use maximum f/4 on my 80-200 f/2.8 lens. Unless the situation is bad.