[dood]

I have the 300D with kit lens (18-55 EFS).

I am considering getting the 28-105 for the obvious benefits of a larger focal range and it's slightly faster than the 18-55.

Except for these advantages, is the quality of the 28-105 better (optically)?

[steeve]

if its a Canon lens its going to be OK, the worst lens seems to be the cheapo 18 to 55 standard kit offering. Like the 28 to 200 lens....

[tomson]

There are a couple of version of the 28-105 - the 3.5-4.5 being the better but more expensive one.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=3

[dood]

What about the EF 28 - 90 USM?

This is a cheap lens in terms of price. But is it better optically than the 18 - 55 EFS? I've noticed that the latest lenses (including the EFS 18 - 55) are micromotor and not micro USM. What does this mean?

My main objective is to get better image quality without having to pay OTT, whilst also getting a slightly better focal range. If the changes are not going be significant I'll drop the idea and plan to get something like a 28 - 135 IS USM at a later stage.

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by dood

What about the EF 28 - 90 USM?

This is a cheap lens in terms of price. But is it better optically than the 18 - 55 EFS? I've noticed that the latest lenses (including the EFS 18 - 55) are micromotor and not micro USM. What does this mean?

My main objective is to get better image quality without having to pay OTT, whilst also getting a slightly better focal range. If the changes are not going be significant I'll drop the idea and plan to get something like a 28 - 135 IS USM at a later stage.

I would suggest you buy a lens for EXACTLY what you want to use it for if you get what I mean??

Any 'zoom' lens is a comprimise over 'Primes' which will give the best quality by far, but to fill your bag with Canon Primes to cover 10mm to 800mm would cost a small fortune.

My main subject is Aircraft, so I need big mm's. If I had the money...
Canon EF 200mm f/1.8L USM
Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L II USM
Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L USM for ground shots

Had to settle for the 100-400mm L zoom..
Don't knock the kit lens....it ain't too shabby for the cost.
A 50mm f1.8 should be on your list....near L quality for around £80.


All the shots here (apart from the 1962 and 1980's ones)............
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true
were taken with the cheap 18-55, 50mm or 75-300 Canon glass....not yet used my 100-400 in anger at an airshow...roll on spring.

Go to a shop, strap on a L lens and shoot off a few frames to take home and compare with 'normal' glass.....

[tomson]

I'm guessing L series lenses are out of his price range.

The 28-90 isn't a great lens to be honest - used one a while back on a photography course and wasn't too impressed with it's results. Cheap but not particularly cheerful. It won't add a great deal to your range either, so you might yearn for something longer very quickly (depends on your usage of course)

The 28-135 IS is much better - has a much more useful range, the 135mm end gives a good reach on a dSLR, and the IS helps in low light/shakey hands conditions etc. Its pretty sharp too -if you avoid using it wide open. Johndm's suggestion of the 50.1.8 is spot on too - a great little lens (apart from it's build).

[dood]

I've taken a few shots with both the 18-55 and 28-90 at 18, 28, 55 and 90 mm at various apertures.

Will give my comments after assessing the shots.

[dood]

After reading so much about how lousy the cheap kit lens is, I was convinced that the cheap 28-90 (4-5.6) would at least be better.

Was I wrong! The kit lens (EFS 18-55) is streets ahead. Especially at wide open apertures where the 28-90 was fuzzy and showed obvious CA at the edges.

I tried really hard to get equivalent images and the only time the two lenses were comparable was in good light, at F10 with the 18-55 at ISO 400 and the 28-90 at ISO 100!

Needless to say I sent the 28-90 back! I will certainly consider the 50mm 1.8 and possibly the 28 - 135 IS USM.

[HotblackDesiato]

My personal favourite around that range is the 24-85.

[Johndm]

Originally Posted by dood

After reading so much about how lousy the cheap kit lens is, I was convinced that the cheap 28-90 (4-5.6) would at least be better.

Was I wrong! The kit lens (EFS 18-55) is streets ahead. Especially at wide open apertures where the 28-90 was fuzzy and showed obvious CA at the edges.

I tried really hard to get equivalent images and the only time the two lenses were comparable was in good light, at F10 with the 18-55 at ISO 400 and the 28-90 at ISO 100!

Needless to say I sent the 28-90 back! I will certainly consider the 50mm 1.8 and possibly the 28 - 135 IS USM.

Yep..the cheapy EFS 18-55 ain't too shabby eh?

You can't get 18mm anywhere as cheap as the EFS (actually 28mm-88mm on the 300D because of the crop factor of 1.6x), and as long as you keep it stopped down to around f/8 results will be pretty good. Open her up though, and things get a bit rough..

[seany]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx