 |
|
|
dtfromep
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Apr 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $138.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, zoom range
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight (it is a dense little guy), zoom is not the smoothest
|
|
|
I got this to replace my kit lens, and what a difference! The size is not much more than the 18-55, but I get about twice the zoom range. Focusing is quick and quiet, I would definitely recommend this as a good walkaround if you are like me and cannot afford the 28-135 IS.
|
|
 Apr 27, 2005
|
|
kandoro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $199.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Optics are superb for a $200 lens...Super quick USM focusing...Very light...Suprisingly sharp wide open and all apertures...
|
|
Cons:
|
Might be a little wide for some on APS-C sensors...
|
|
|
For a $200 lens I'm sorry I didn't buy it sooner...Frankly it's a sharper lens than the 24-85 and 28-135 IS, I owned previously...Contrast and color are pretty much the same...This lens is light and fast enough that IS would have little value for me under normal shooting 95% of the time...With most consumer priced $200 lenses, the difference between wide open and f/8 is huge...Not so with this lens...You have to enlarge above 100% to see any difference between f/3.5 (28mm) or 4.5 (105mm) and f/8 at any focal length, and that's only in the corners...
Obviously it can't resolve with the "L" lenses but at anything under 8x10 one would be hard pressed to spot the difference between the 28-105 and a 24/28-70L or 17-40L...
I highly recommend this lens and gave it a ten across the board because I'm comparing it to lenses close to it's price range...I don't believe there is any lens in this focal length and price that compare with the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5...
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2005
|
|
EOS20
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 6, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 13423
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Good focal range for walkabout
|
|
Cons:
|
No lens hood, Front extends when zooming, Not a fixed aperture.
|
|
|
A good lens to use for general walk about on a film camera,
On digital the wide end just isen't wide enough.
It is built well for a consumer lens but not up to the quality of the "L" series.
A constent aperture would be great too.
Overall a nice general purpous lens to own at a decent price.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2005
|
|
protohiro
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 10
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good optical quality for the price. Light, solid construction. USM AF is fast and quiet.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow. A little soft at all focal lengths in my tests at f/11. Contrast and color could be better. Barrel extends for zooming and feels a little flimsy when it does. 28mm isn't very wide on 1.6x cameras.
|
|
|
A great lens for the price. I got this used so I only paid $155. Its light and the range is perfect for a walk around lens. 105 is great for portraits but the 4.5 maximum aperature leaves a little to be desired for shallow focus. But the bokeh is a lot nicer than I expected. Really this is length is good for an advanced amatur (like me) but it is not L glass. I have rented the 24-70 2.8l, which is four times as expensive but definetly far superior. This lens is too slow to be practical for weddings and other pro work you might use a lens of this length for. Available light indoors is not feasable.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2005
|
|
stephenmak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 16, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Feb 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $239.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Inexpensive, good range, albeit a bit long in the range, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
No "L" prestige ;-)
|
|
|
This is a remarkably inexpensive lens for what it does. It's sharp, fast and quiet focusing, and is an excellent consumer grade lens. It's no "L" lens, but it's not priced like one either.
The lens isn't quite as wide as I'd like on a 1.6x crop DSLR, like a 10D, but on a film camera, which I still have, it's terrific (if I ever start using the film camera again). However, you know that it's not that wide when you buy it.
The non linear maximum aperture is a bit annoying, however, if the choice were to slow down the lens to keep it at f4.5 at 28, I'd pass, and if it meant making the lens more expensive, I'd pass also.
All in all, it's a great lens for the price, offering great image making possibilities for very little money.
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2005
|
|
walter23
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 2685
|
|
Review Date: Feb 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, inexpensive, fast and quiet autofocus, covers a good range of focal lengths.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slight distortion at extremes, mainly noticable at the wide end with a very flat horizon off-center.
|
|
|
I got this lens in a package deal with my first film SLR, an elan 7n. Yes I'm am amateur, but I'm not an idiot. This lens is sharp and well built for a lens in its price range. Overall image quality is comparable to my 50mm prime. It feels solid and the mechanical focus ring and zoom work smoothly and solidly. The USM autofocus motor is very fast and very quiet - all you hear is a quick "sh," and you've achieved focus.
There is very slight barrel distortion at 28mm, but nothing dramatic, and certainly much better than other comparably priced zooms I've looked at. In most situations it is not even noticable - the only time I've ever detected it was when photographing a thunderstorm in the prairies, where I placed the perfectly straight horizon near the very bottom of the frame. In this case the emphasis was on the cloud formations, so the slightly curved horizon didn't matter to me. I've photographed ocean scenes with more traditional composition (horizon ~1/3rd up from bottom) without appreciable distortion.
It's very light, and again it's cheap. Perfect for daily use. I don't anticipate replacing it for a long time.
|
|
|
Feb 6, 2005
|
|
Antti29
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Location: Finland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $270.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, fast and silent autofocus.
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit soft wide open.
|
|
|
I had a wonderful opportunity to compare this lens to the f/4-5.6 version as I was accidentally sent that instead of the f/3.5-4.5 I'd ordered. Price aside, everything is much better in this one. It's almost a full stop faster, the build quality is better and there is a decent focus ring with a distance scale.
As to the zoom range, on a film camera it fills just about all photographic needs except the extremeties and makes an excellent walk-around lens. On a 1.6 field-of-view crop the effective 45mm is somewhat too long and a wide-angle lens is needed for the wider shots.
As I already mentioned, the build quality is very good. And for the price I paid I won't get a better lens with a comparable zoom range. The 24-70 f/2.8 L would be the next step up and that's out of my price range.
The lens sports a ring USM autofocus motor which is very fast and features a full-time manual focus.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2005
|
|
mdwhaley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
USM, zoom range, size and weight, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I got this lens at my local shop used. Great lens. The auto focus is super quick. Perfect size on the camera for a walk around lens. Image quality is really good, it was better than I expected. It isn't as nice as the Canon primes but it isn't a prime its a 28-105. Seems pretty sharp wide open although I tend to use it on 4.5 or 5.6 at the widest since I usually shoot in Manual mode and don't like the changing aperture when zooming if it is set wider than 4.5. I think it is the sleeper in the Canon zoom line up. It isn't as big and expensive as the 28-135, and it's cheaper than the 24-85 (why?). If your looking for a good all around lens get this one before you buy an off brand lens.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2005
|
|
Haifidelity
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 212
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light, Decent Construction, Good Range (Focal Lengths), USM, good lens @ f/5.6+
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft wide open, variable aperature, lens hood is extra.
|
|
|
This is the first lens I bought when I started a Canon DSLR/SLR system. For the price, it's really great lens, especially stopped down at f/5.6+
It sports a USM motor and is decently built. It's range is good for a 'walk about lens' and beats out a lot of kit lenses. It's not a pro caliber lens, but it isn't priced like one either.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2005
|
|
tell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1409
|
|
Review Date: Jan 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft
|
|
|
This lens is fine for just having fun. Forget about doing anything professional with it. The ratio of sharp to soft shots is just too unpredicatable.
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2005
|
|
FishHouse
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, quality, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Very nice walk-around-lens. Overall performance is good, it's fast and very sharp.
|
|
|
Jan 2, 2005
|
|
pziasd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 576
|
|
Review Date: Dec 27, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $229.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, size, weight, USM, metal lens mount as opposed to the plastic found on kit lenses.
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood extra.
|
|
|
I decided to buy this lens for use on my new Elan 7N, I had been using a Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3 on an old A2. The lens is easily half the size and weight of the old Tamron. Photos are crisp and sharp, I do agree with the rest that a flash is needed indoors...I decided to buy this lens instead of the newer Tamron 28-300, which is much lighter and smaller than the Tamron it replaces, however I didn't like the plastic lens mount on a $400 lens...
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2004
|
|
corgiwcn
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 50
|
|
Review Date: Dec 18, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $230.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp after f/5.6. Light and well-built for the price. USM focusing system.
|
|
Cons:
|
Bland color rendering. Not contrasty when you need it. Not very flare-resistent.
|
|
|
If you check pbase.com, some of the best pictures were shot by this lens. On the other hand, a lot of pictures shot by 24-70L were mediocre at best. The range of this lens is very useful -- 70mm to 105mm can be used as a poor man's telephoto. This makes it a very good walkaround lens. Compared with 28-135 f/3.5-5.6, this is much lighter and less intimidating -- almost like a prime. Compared with more "serious" lenses like the monstrous 24-70 f/2.8 or the first half of the 70-200 f/4, this lens' advantage is quite obvious. For street photography, this lens is a good choice for anybody fond of the midrange (35mm-70mm) in the traditional 35mm world.
Optically, this is a "good-enough" lens. On the wide end, wide-open is not really an option. When you reach f/4.5, it begins to make sense. When you zoom to the longer end, this lens gradually becomes quite usable even when wide open. Alas, If you need it to be very sharp, f/5.6 is probably a safe bet for the entire focal length range.
For anybody who hasn't played with Canon's "L" lenses, this lens is indeed a flexible tool. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that the lens is, like most consumer lenses, susceptible to flare and thus not very contrasty in a lot of shooting situations. Do not use it in the woods or high mountains. For city streets, it's very good. The color rendering of this lens is also blander than most primes and higher-up lenses.
This lens, depite its cheap price, comes with a ghostly silent USM motor, better than the 50mm f/1.4. It's solidly built yet light and short.
I have been using prime lenses in the range for quite a long time. This lens rarely got out of the camera bag. However, in any street shooting situation, this lens will always be called for duty for fast and nice snapshots.
|
|
|
Dec 18, 2004
|
|
alphatexana
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, Price, Range
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is a great walk-around lens and replaced the 18-55 kit lens I had on my 300D. It is a great size and weight for many of the family and travel photos I end up taking. It is also a great lens for the price.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2004
|
|
Rolli
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 15, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $233.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Price - Quality - Fast auto Focus - lots of lens for the money.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
A great product for a fair price, close to the L quality.
Roland
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Sep 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focus scale (IR focus scale too), Non-rotating front, Full time AF and MF, Big bang for buck, 58mm filter, Good build (things like metal mount and case), Light, Silent and fast AF, Good focal length range...
|
|
Cons:
|
No lens hood included (EW-63 II will run you about $25).
|
|
|
I have been using this lens on my Digital Rebel with no complaints really. It works great for infrared too! This is a much better lens than that EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens has a plastic mount, doesn't work with infrared, no focus scale, slow and loud AF, rotating front, and not very good zoom. Long story short, I don't know how good this lens is for film SLR, but for the Digital Rebel it beats the kit lens by far and for a fair price.
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
122
|
298405
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$216.72
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
8.31
|
9.02
|
8.4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
