Nikon 18-105/Canon 28-135!

[mathew18]

hello,
actually that's a little bit weird question. but I'll explain my case.
I'm about to buy a camera and my budget doesn't allow me to exceed 1300 USD.
So, I want a DSLR and an all around lens. (cuz I'm going to travel with it).
actually this lens is going to stick with me for a long time till I've money to buy another one. So I want a really good lens to be satisfied with!

I narrowed my choices to:
Nikon D90 + 18-105 VR
Canon 450D + 28-135 IS (thought it's not a kit lens but it's quite affordable)

I know that as a body the D90 wins.
but image quality is the most important thing to me.
So, I'm here comparing lenses, is the Nikon 18-105 VR is better than the Canon 28-135 IS or at least as good as it is?

if anyone has another options for me please say it

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Mathew,

Welcome to the CiC forums, great to have you start with a thought provoking question.

One thing I would like to confirm is that you realise that the angle of view of these two lenses is different; if we map them both to their 35mm equivalent with crop factor of those sensors;
18 * 1.5 = 27mm for Nikon D90 and 28 * 1.6 = 45mm for Canon 450D, now that is quite a difference and I can't help feeling 27mm is more suited as a single lens solution for travel. 45mm will be too 'tight' for average indoor shots and arguably, for views outdoors. If you have, and will use, a tripod, then stitching a panorama from several shots is possible to get a wider vista recorded outside. I don't see the difference at the telephoto end as being so relevant.

As you say; body-wise, there's no contest, the D90 will be far more suitable for later growth in the hobby and gives a reasonably wide range of lens options and better ergonomics from day one.

I don't have either lens or body, so I'll pipe-down now and let other's in with suggestions and thoughts.

Cheers,

[Bill44]

Mathew, I have both the D90 and the 18-105. I can't complain about either one of them. If you read the reviews the 18-105 is considered excellent value for the money, the lens being even cheaper if you buy it as a kit with the D90.

[mathew18]

well, thanks both Dave and Bill
now I'm waiting for someone who used or tried the 28-135 to tell me how it felt.

[Andy]

The EF 28-135mm IS isn't up to much IMHO. Well, I didn't think much of it 10 years ago when I was shooting film and it's not changed.

It was an option as a kit lens when I bought my EOS 3. Bit like the 28-105mm (the better one) it's soft wide open, soft at the wide end and absolutely dreadful stopped down to f/22. Even at the sweet spot of the zooms I could tell what shots I used my 50mm f/1.4 for from a 6x9 print at arms length! Added to that the IS in the 28-135mm is 1st generation so is only good for two stops at best and, IIRC, doesn't have a panning mode either. Newer IS lenses tend to claim up to 4 stops.

$1300 is bound to get a new Canon with a more modern kit lens with IS? What does a 17-85mm IS or 18-55mm IS come in at?

[mathew18]

most of the reviews I've read say that the 28-135 IS is better than 18-55 IS and very similar to the 17-85 IS. that's in terms of image quality. but I don't know if it is REALLY good or not. I don't know is it better than the Nikon 18-105 VR or not. or is it versatile in travel? I still don't know that.

[Bill44]

If my experience in travel is anything to go by you will find that you use the wide end more than the long end, so 18 is a lot better than 28 for this. I do a lot of sports action photography for netball, and have found the 18-105 is the lens I use 90% of the time, sharp wide open and shooting from the sidelines gives me a good range of coverage from close up to half the length of the court.

I am not familiar with the latest Canon gear, but I did a lot of research with the knowledge of a long film background and settled on the Nikon for performance/value. Be advised that I was a 30 year Canon film shooter.

[mathew18]

thank you! knowing that you much use the 18mm is a very good point I needed to know!