I think the 35-70 is much better in the corners at some focal lengths and f/5.6. The 28-85 is sharper in the center even wide open. Actually I believe this zoom has been designed to be used mostly wide open. There is a nice comparison at 16-9.net.
No, it is not much better. The 2 lenses are comparable. The 28-85 has a wider range (not that it is stellar at 28mm), but over the 35-70mm range they are close. I don't think you would really gain anything overall by getting the 35-70. You might lose a little weight and size, however, if that is important.
According to 16-9.net, at 35mm and f/5.6, the 35-70 outperforms the 28-85 in the corners quite clearly (8.3 vs. 6.8) while both get an outstanding 8.7 in the center.
At 50mm and f/5.6, the 35-70 is marginally better in both center (8.9 vs. 8.4) and in the corners (8.2 vs. 7.9).
At 70mm (81mm for the 28-85) and f/5.6, the 35-70 is better in the center (8.8 vs. 8.3) but is softer in the corners (7.2 vs. 7.6).
the 28-85 is parafocal, it can be used with AF confirm chips without problem, the shorter zoom is a bit of a hassel to focus.
Striclty landscape the 35-70 is a bit sharper in the corners and has less weight. For everyday photography, the 28-85 is IMO the better lens.
Since I noticed that I use the 28mm more often than any other lens when on vacation, and second the 100mm, I was wondering if the 28-85 would not be a better lens for me than the 35-70 due to the greater range that it offers. I do not expect it to beat the 28mm prime, but I guess since I usually shoot at 5.6-8.0 I would expect it to be a great travel lens. Any of you using this lens that way ?
Regards, Stefan
I never used coded AF chips, I guess I would look out for a lens with a barrel deformation and a bit of CA to be able to correct these in DPP, maybe 24-105L at the wide end if this is possible. However this is only an idea no user experiance
slungu wrote:
Since I noticed that I use the 28mm more often than any other lens when on vacation, and second the 100mm, I was wondering if the 28-85 would not be a better lens for me than the 35-70 due to the greater range that it offers. I do not expect it to beat the 28mm prime, but I guess since I usually shoot at 5.6-8.0 I would expect it to be a great travel lens. Any of you using this lens that way ?
Regards, Stefan
I prefer primes for travel, the zoom is rather large, however if you prefer a zoom lens this will make for a wonderful travel lens, pictures have the zeiss look out of the body
I used this lens for my travel in my younger days with film. It is, of course, larger than the primes. However, I felt that the benefit of having one lens with close to prime quality of several focal lengths outweighed the size concern.
Richard,
Should I have it encoded to 28mm/3.3 or 85mm/4.0 ?
giadinh wrote:
Should I have it encoded to 28mm/3.3 or 85mm/4.0 ?
That's up to you. If you get it encoded to the focal length and aperture of a similar Canon lens, then sometimes that means you can use DPP's lens aberration settings, which may or may not be appropriate.
