[Reinier]

Hello All,



About 1,5 years ago I bought a second hand Canon EOS 5D I together with a EF 17-40mm. Although the 17-40 is a fine lens, it is not the range I prefer. In my film days I always had a Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II. Actually I still have it, but after 20 years of intense usage, it has been broken.



I would love to own a 28-70mm(a bigger range is welcome too) once again and sell my 17-40mm. I have read some tests, but I cannot make up my mind yet.



Of course I want quality(who doesn't) I will use the lens for landscapes(flat Dutch landscapes and seascapes), buildings and nature. I want as little distortion and field curvature(or none at all) as possible. And weight is important too, like the Canon 24-70/2.8 is too heavy. I have about 500-600 euro to spent.





Any suggestions would be welcome.





Kind regards,



Reinier

[Klaus]

[quote name='Reinier' timestamp='1309765804' post='9728']

Hello All,



About 1,5 years ago I bought a second hand Canon EOS 5D I together with a EF 17-40mm. Although the 17-40 is a fine lens, it is not the range I prefer. In my film days I always had a Canon EF 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 II. Actually I still have it, but after 20 years of intense usage, it has been broken.



I would love to own a 28-70mm(a bigger range is welcome too) once again and sell my 17-40mm. I have read some tests, but I cannot make up my mind yet.



Of course I want quality(who doesn't) I will use the lens for landscapes(flat Dutch landscapes and seascapes), buildings and nature. I want as little distortion and field curvature(or none at all) as possible. And weight is important too, like the Canon 24-70/2.8 is too heavy. I have about 500-600 euro to spent.





Any suggestions would be welcome.





Kind regards,



Reinier

[/quote]



There's basically no standard zoom lens without field curvature and little distortions.

Regarding your budget limits there's probably just the Tamron 28-75 and the old Sigma 24-70/2.8 to choose from.

I would probably lean towards the Tamron and pray for a good sample.

[Brightcolours]

You want a cheap/affordable standard zoom, of not too much weight. The Tarmon 28-75mm f2.8 XD Di is indeed an option. Not sure how it compares to that old 28-70 you had, but in the center it is a sharp lens, and the corners are ok. At half a kilo, it is not light, but light for an f2.8 lens.



Another option can be the very affordable Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM (I or II). It focusses silently, fast and accurately on the 5D, and is reasonably sharp when you stop down a bit. Problem is availability in the Netherlands (has not been carried by Canon here for many years now) but if you find it for instance 2nd hand, it is a nice lens for the money.

Saw one on market place with original box for €150 for instance.



With either of those, I would get a Canon EF 24mm f2.8 for the distortion free wide angle shots... a contrasty lens, low in distortion, sharp, compact and light.. Great to also bring along (weight) and make wide landscape shots, when you need a bit better optics.

[Rainer]

I personally found the EF 24-105/4L to be a very good standard lens on the 5D ... however,

it will not fit into your budget ... and it also exposes quite an amount of

barrel-distortion at 24mm (which might be unacceptable to you for the price the 24-105L costs).



Besides the lenses already named (Tamron 28-75/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8 and Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5)

I see the "EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM" and the "EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 USM"



Just my 2cts ... Rainer

[backcountryskier]

Canon 28-135 IS and Tamron 28-75/2.8 were the two lenses that popped into my head.



The first would give you lots of range and IS, the second more speed and a tad more sharpness.



Both these zooms start at 28 mm. You already have an ultrawide so why get a 24-something zoom. Those cost more and have distortion at the wide end.

[Guest]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309777228' post='9731']

You want a cheap/affordable standard zoom, of not too much weight. The Tarmon 28-75mm f2.8 XD Di is indeed an option. Not sure how it compares to that old 28-70 you had, but in the center it is a sharp lens, and the corners are ok. At half a kilo, it is not light, but light for an f2.8 lens.



Another option can be the very affordable Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM (I or II). It focusses silently, fast and accurately on the 5D, and is reasonably sharp when you stop down a bit. Problem is availability in the Netherlands (has not been carried by Canon here for many years now) but if you find it for instance 2nd hand, it is a nice lens for the money.

Saw one on market place with original box for €150 for instance.



With either of those, I would get a Canon EF 24mm f2.8 for the distortion free wide angle shots... a contrasty lens, low in distortion, sharp, compact and light.. Great to also bring along (weight) and make wide landscape shots, when you need a bit better optics.

[/quote]

sorry but the 28-105 3.5-4.5 is optically crap. from 28-50mm it never gets sharp, even stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Between 50-105 it is decently sharp at f/8- f/11, but horrible wide open. I had one for years during the film days and always used my Tokina 20-35 at the wide end and a misfocssing Sigma 70-200 at the long eninstead. Autofocus, was splendid with this lens though.



if your budget doesnt strech, Id go for the 28-135 inestead which is 400 Euros and optically much improved. Of course a decent Tamron 28-75 could also provide good results, with the advantage of higher speed.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='jenbenn' timestamp='1309806821' post='9735']

sorry but the 28-105 3.5-4.5 is optically crap. from 28-50mm it never gets sharp, even stopped down to f/8 or f/11. Between 50-105 it is decently sharp at f/8- f/11, but horrible wide open. I had one for years during the film days and always used my Tokina 20-35 at the wide end and a misfocssing Sigma 70-200 at the long eninstead. Autofocus, was splendid with this lens though.



if your budget doesnt strech, Id go for the 28-135 inestead which is 400 Euros and optically much improved. Of course a decent Tamron 28-75 could also provide good results, with the advantage of higher speed.

[/quote]

That can be a sample variation thing, I know a number of people who actually like the 28-105mm quite a bit. Of course, not an L-lens.



I just now looked on fred miranda, and there too are a number of people who like it, and then there are some who do not. It gets a noticeably higher score than the 28-135 on fred miranda too.

Many conflicting opinions about these two lenses.

[Klaus]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1309851742' post='9745']

That can be a sample variation thing, I know a number of people who actually like the 28-105mm quite a bit. Of course, not an L-lens.



I just now looked on fred miranda, and there too are a number of people who like it, and then there are some who do not. It gets a noticeably higher score than the 28-135 on fred miranda too.

Many conflicting opinions about these two lenses.

[/quote]



In any case - both have high distortions at 28mm. I wouldn't be on low field curvature either.

For the sake of completion you could add the 24-85mm USM. Strangely it has been discontinued but it's probably somewhat better than the other two IN THE OVERLAPPING RANGE.

[wim]

Hi Reinier,



If you want as little distortion and field curvature as possible, I reckon you will have to go the prime route, probably something along the lines of 24 F/2.8, 50 F.1.8 or F/1.4, and 85 F/1.8 or the old 100 F/2.8 non-L macro.



If you can get over some distortion, and I know it is out of your budget, did you consider the 24-105 F/4L yet? Very good for a standard zoom on the 5D, and in good, used condition a little over your current budget (around € 700).



Kind regards, Wim

[Reinier]

Hello Everybody,



Thanks very much for the replies and advice.



I could probably stretch my budget a little, let's say maybe towards 750 euro, but that depends how much I get for my 17-40mm.



At the moment I have the following lenses:

EF 28mm/2.8

EF 50mm/2.8

EF 17-40mm/4.0

EF 70-200/4.0

Tamron 200-400mm(bought for just 125 euro)



I am not to keen on this lens, because it's not worthwhile to use this lens isntead of the 17-40mm at 28mm. I am planning to sell both lenses. I also have the 50mm/1.8, but it has never been used. It came with the camera when I bought it(second hand).



Distortion can be a problem with flat horizons like seascapes when the horizon is in the top or bottom of the frame. Of course I can correct this, but I try to do as little post processing as possible, due to the limited amount of time I am able to sit.







Best wishes,



Reinier











[quote name='wim' timestamp='1309862416' post='9748']

Hi Reinier,



If you want as little distortion and field curvature as possible, I reckon you will have to go the prime route, probably something along the lines of 24 F/2.8, 50 F.1.8 or F/1.4, and 85 F/1.8 or the old 100 F/2.8 non-L macro.



If you can get over some distortion, and I know it is out of your budget, did you consider the 24-105 F/4L yet? Very good for a stnadard zoom on the 5D, and in good, used condition a little over your current budget (around € 700).



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]