Nikon 18-105/Canon 28-135!

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 :)

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,

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.:D

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