Take two - I've hopefully found the correct forum this time! Are there any optical differences between these two lenses? I realise that each has its own plus and minus points - in terms of focal lengths, but optically, is one superior? At 50mm would the (f1.8 II) prime be that much better? Thanks.

-- Andy Williams (Andrew.Williams@bris.ac.uk), April 25, 2000

Answers

In response to Darron, the 24-85 is a consumer lens of course, but not one of the cheap ones. The 28-80 is the one packaged with Rebels, and even Elan IIs. The 24-85 came out with Canon's first APS SLR (kind of an insult to any lens) but all of the reviews have been good. I'd have to say that any differences in quality would be small if they exist, so go with the one that meets your requirements for focal length and relax. Neither will be as good as a prime at any focal length, but both will be very good and more versatile. For the record, since I bought my 50 f1.8, I seldom use the 28-80 I got with my Elan IIe. It isn't a bad lens stopped down, but it's already slow, so that requires a lot of light. I don't know if my lens of choice would be the same if I had bought the 28-105 instead, or if I would still use the 50 mostly. The 24-85 hadn't been introduced when I bought my camera, but I have often wished for and extra 4mm on the short end, if that helps with your decision any.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), April 25, 2000.

Andy, welcome to the Camera Equipment forum, and thanks for posting this over here. Are you talking about Canon or Nikon lenses here? If you're taking Canon, the 25-105 is a much better lens. The Canon 24-85 is a low-grade consumer lens intended for package deals with the Rebel cameras. I talked one of my friends out of that lens and into the 28- 105 a few years ago and he's trusted my opinion since then as he is very happy with the lens.

However, (and this will apply to Nikon and other brands too) the 50/1.8 is a much sharper lens and is less prone to flare. Prime (single- length) lenses invlove fewer design compromises than do zooms. Those compromises do affect the final image. If you're shooting backlit flowers (as I plan to do in Yosemite this weekend) you will easily notice the difference.

With zoom lenses you get what you pay for. I've been using my cameras professionally since 1986, and have never been happy with any of the zooms except the professional (i.e. hyper-expensive) models. I've owned a few zooms and tried many over the years, and settled on prime lenses because they offer the best performance for the money. It's also easier to spread out my purchases and pick up a 28 then get a 100 a few months later than it is to drop $1500 on a professional f/2.8 zoom or two.

If you want this focal range, and are truly concerned with image quality, start with the 50/1.8 (or the 50/1.4 if you have the budget) then get a 28 and a 100 later. Your photographs will look better and you'll learn more about composition by moving around than you will by zooming in and out.

Just be careful. If you get too concerned over quality, and spend any time at all in a good gallery, you'll end up with a 4x5 camera like some of us.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 25, 2000.

Many thanks Darron, I was indeed refering to the Canon lenses.

-- Andy Williams (Andrew.Williams@bris.ac.uk), April 25, 2000.

Andy

I must disagree with Darron that the Canon 24-85 is of much lower quality than the 28-105. Both are consumer zoom lenses, but if you search around you will found many favorable comments on both. It is generally accepted that they are very similar in performance. I use to own the 28-105, but sold it in favor of the 24-85. In more than a year of regular use I can say with confidence that the 24-85 is every bit as sharp as the 28-108. I think your decision should be based on your intended use of the lens and not comparable sharpness. In my case I find the extra 4 mm at the short more useful than the extra mm on the long end.

-- Nico Smit (Nico@anp.co.za), April 25, 2000.

Good point Nico. My friend and I were getting pretty picky about performance when I recommended he buy the 28-105. That's as wide as he needs to go, and he wanted the extra reach on the long end. You're right, these lenses are so close that buying the one that meets your needs makes more sense than worrying about which one is sharper. There's probably more production line variation between two identical models (ex: 28-105 vs. 28-105) than differences between these two models (24-85 vs. 28-105).

Still, for the best quality three primes beat one zoom every time.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 25, 2000.

EF24-85 is a sharp 24mm lens with flexibility to mild tele.

-- George Zhang (george.zhang@china.zeneca.com), April 29, 2000.

That's why I opted for the 24-85 for general usage and then a 100 f2.0 USM for portraiture. And I loved the combination and result.

-- NG Ting Shan (tingshan@netvigator.com), May 20, 2000.

When I bought my Elan IIe, I was trying to decide what lens to buy, the 24-85, or the 28-105. I had read that optically, they both performed well. But what made me buy the 28-105 is that the 24-85 does not fit into a system well because it has a weird size for filters. I think its 67mm or something, while the 28-105 is a much more common 58mm. Hope this helps.

-- eric shen (emptelite@hotmail.com), June 11, 2000.

When I made the switch to Canon EOS, my first lens was the EF 28- 105. For the time I had it, it was a terrific lens. I soon complimented that lens with the EF 20-35/3.5-4.5. But I wanted something 'better' so I sold them in favor of primes. But I soon missed the convenience of zooms, so I started looking again at Canon zooms. The EF 24-85 fit the bill. That lens pretty much covers the range I used with my two former lenses. The extra 4mm you get at the wide end is surprising - it makes a big difference in the image. Yes, at times I miss having the range up to 105mm, but in those instances I move slightly closer to my subject. Don't let the 67mm filter size dictate whether or not you buy this lens. That's bunk. Besides the relatively new EF 70-200/4 uses the same filter size, so the 24-85 isn't some strange one-off lens. If price is important, used 24-85s are generally sell for $80-$100 (don't know how that translates into British pounds) more than used 28-105s (which I think are a great value used). If you shoot scenics, then I think you will appreciate the 24-85 more than the 28-105; vice versa if you shoot more people photos, IMO. Image quality between the two - a toss-up.

Good luck with your decision.

-- James Hicks (jhicks992@aol.com), June 26, 2000.