What is the consensus about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM ? Is it a good starter lens that beats the kit lenses? B&H sells for $229 USA model

Stopped down it's a very sharp lil lens. Nice walkaround if you're not a wide shooter
on a 1.6 cropper. I've had a couple over the years, handed down to the Daughters
with 35 f2's for low light stuff. Nice IQ w/o breakin' the bank....read "old man".
(A couple have sold in the last week here on the B&S for $160+/-) FWIW

Sure, it is a fine starter lens. I used one for about a year on my 10D when I first went digital, did real work with it. Shot at about 5.6 or smaller and you should be OK. I'm sure you could find a used one for less than $229. Personally I think you should get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a starter lens, and then just keep it forever as your permanent lens.

I had the MarkI since 1989, works great for the price. I used it on my EOS 650 until I got back into it. My daughter has it on her XTi and she loves it for it's size.

Its a great lens for the money! I found my copy to be decent wide open, But stopped down a little it was quite sharp. It was my walkabout lens on my film cameras, I did find the focal length a little odd on my digital bodies though (But I was using 17-40 and 70-200 lenses for digital).

It's built better than the kit and it has USM. Optically, the kit lens is actually a bit better, though neither is a standout. Contrast is lower in the 28-105 than some of the more recent designs, as is resolution. It's stronger stopped down to f/8 or f/11.

I wouldn't buy one if you've got a DSLR. Odd focal range, relatively slow, no stabilization, and optically weak. If you want to upgrade from the kit lens, the 17-85/4-5.6 IS is where it's at, or the Sigma 17-70/2.8-4, or move to the Tamron 17-50/2.8.

I got one to use with my 1D to use until I could afford a 70-200 and 16-35 or 17-40, and it's actually quite a good lens for the money. The focusing is nice and fast, its build quality is worlds better than the 18-55 kits, and it's sharp enough for me wide open, where I usually shoot it.

I have other things to worry about than how sharp my lens is in the corners or how the color rendition is; all I can say is that it works for me and focuses quickly and accurately.

The 28-105 was my first lens on my 10D, and I got many nice shots with it. If you're planning on paying $229 + shipping for a new one, maybe shop here in the Buy/Sell forum for a few weeks. Bet you'll see a mint Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 for $280 or so, and that's a lens you'll be much happier with.

it was my first lens in the xti and got mostly good things to say about it. I wouldn't use it as a replacement for the kit lens but rather a complement. 28 goes to 43 in crop body and soon you'll find yourself wanting a bit more room.

i've got some pics at f/5.6 and f/8, f/11. I'll get around to post'em if you want me to.

this lens was great for me on a film camera, but on my XT it is not wide enough, it does not ive you enough control of DOF and, to me, the images it produces sometimes lack contrast. That being said, I still use it and when I don't need wide angle, it works quite well in good light. it is worth it if you don't want to shoot wide angle, but what fun is that=)

It's definitely a great lens for the money. Very sharp when stopped down a bit, decent build, pretty good colour and very fast and accurate USM focussing. Its weak spot is probably the corner sharpness on the wide end, but this hasn't bothered me much. This lens served me well until I upgraded to the 24-105L.

I have never owned one but always wanted to give it a try. I have heard it's a better lens than the 28-135 IS but without owning both I am not sure this is true.

Well I just bought the 28-105 will get it this next week so I can comapre it with the 28-135 sure seems like a good bargain lens I picked mine up for around $160

Edited by tanglefoot47 on Aug 31, 2008 at 11:49 AM GMT

trenchmonkey wrote:
Stopped down it's a very sharp lil lens. Nice walkaround if you're not a wide shooter
on a 1.6 cropper. I've had a couple over the years, handed down to the Daughters
with 35 f2's for low light stuff. Nice IQ w/o breakin' the bank....read "old man".
(A couple have sold in the last week here on the B&S for $160+/-) FWIW

And I bought one of those off of him a year ago

I used it only for work with flash setups, so worst case, I used it at f6.3, but usually at f8. Nice little lens, light, FAST focusing (main reason I got it) and most of all cheap!

KS

I had both a mark I and mark II. Optically they were very similar. I thought they were both good lenses for the money. Decent build quality. I only bought the 24-105 after my last 28-105 had a run-in with a nail file hidden by someone else in my jacket pocket.

Paul Munk wrote:
What is the consensus about the Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM ? Is it a good starter lens that beats the kit lenses? B&H sells for $229 USA model


For many years, the EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II was a good alternative to the old EF-S 18-55 kit lens. It offered good performance for the money. But these days, I would think the new and improved EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens would be a better choice. The new kit lens is optically superior, has image stabilization, and covers a more useful range (Wide to Short Tele). At around $199 it already offers better value than the 28-105. And the fact that it only adds $90 to the cost of a new dSLR kit makes it even better.

Wow, This is a old thread!! My last post in this thread was Aug 17, 2007 at 09:49 AM Nearly a year ago!!

You might also want to look at the 24-85 if you plan on using the lens on a crop camera.

Used it in Europe, If I knew I would have taken a wider lens, but the quality on this lens is not bad. I must admit, I sharpenned a little the photos shown in my site.

http://www.laplazita.net/europa/

I still use it and it's excellent except that it's not wide enough on the crop bodies. But don't be fooled by it's Macro, it doesn't come close to one.

EOS20 wrote:
Wow, This is a old thread!! My last post in this thread was Aug 17, 2007 at 09:49 AM Nearly a year ago!!

You might also want to look at the 24-85 if you plan on using the lens on a crop camera.



Had one of these about two years ago and thought it was a pretty good lens

It's a decent lens but is "sized" for a full-frame camera. It's really not wide enough on a crop camera. My advice, which I'm sure many others would agree with, if you can afford a bit more: Get a (possibly used) Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It's designed/sized (in its focal length range) for a crop camera, and is a significantly better lens in most regards than the one you're looking at.