|
|
bartoszwozniak
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 3, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 7, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very cheap
Well, solid built
Fast and very quite autofocus
Decent Sharpness and good overall quality
|
|
Cons:
|
The MF ring is a tiny bit stiff
The lens is not 100% sharp wide open (not really a problem for the price though)
The aperture is not as wide as it could be and its not constant
|
|
I have just received the EF 28-105mm f/3.5 - f/4.5 II USM. I bought it very cheaply off eBay a couple of days ago. I obviously haven't really had much time to test it properly yet, but I will do and then possibly add to this and maybe add some sample images too.
My first impressions of the lens were that it is very well built, yet quite small and compact. This was ideal for me, since I was looking for a walk-around lens which would stay on my 40D for most of the time. I had a go with the zooming and the manual focusing (yes, it does have full manual override) and it felt great. The Ultrasonic motor was lighting fast and very quiet. The focus ring does not even move when focussing, but I noticed that it is quite hard to turn when in MF. It is very weighted and quite stiff, which makes it a little bit annoying, but it's nothing major and I am sure that it will come looser with time. The lens seemed quite bright and covers a good range, even on a crop body. From the photos that I took, it seems relatively sharp at both the wide and telephoto end and not too bad wide open.
No problems so far!
Quite frankly - very happy with my purchase and I would recommend this lens for anyone!
|
|
 May 7, 2010
|
|
jay tieger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 10, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1127
|
|
Review Date: Jan 16, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light weight/compact, wider widest aperture for brighter indoor view, USM focusing, good FL range, little distortion, edge-to-center balanced IQ, good contrast/colors, 58mm filter, very decent F4.5 lens
|
|
Cons:
|
don't look a gift horse in the mouth
|
|
First off: I got it off Craigslist with busted filter-caused hairline scratch on front element, filter ring that won't come off, moderate amount of dust inside, and no rear cap...hence the cheap price.
I once had the 24-85 on a 10D...loved it but it had distortion issues, and wasn't wide enough, so replaced it with the 18-55 IS....
But the kit isn't really bright enough viewing in indoor use...it's okay but not once I put the MF screen in the 40D...that is not recommended with a widest aperture >2.8, so you can imagine looking through the EF-S screen @ 5.6!
This lens overcomes that objection/conflict/issue...
The barrel/pincussion distortion of the 24-85 is gone with this lens.
My use for this is group candids at events (not professionally-paid gigs, just parties and such)...barrel distortion at wider FLs distorts those people at edges, so this lens's lack of such distortion is a real plus....so is USM for such uses.
The lack of distortion means that for scenics, the soft edges won't be distorted, i.e. curved towards the center...soft edges can be dealt with, but distorted swirling grass and trees? No....
The evenly distributed IQ means that once stopped down the improved IQ is noticable from edge to edge...another plus when shooting groups...easier to improve in PP when the end head is close to sharpness as the guy in the center....
I said it's a very decent 4.5 lens because I generally wouldn't advise using the widest aperture on any consumer zoom lens...shooting wide open is for "L" quality glass.
...so, if one's minimally acceptable IQ standard is one F-stop down from wide open, then thinking of this lens as widest at 4.5 means one should not use it wider than 7.1 (unless one WANTED a soft image, such as portrait)....
At F7.1 the edges become virtually as sharp as the center, and at F8-11 both center and edge imporve to very good.
The 58mm filter ring means shared PL filter with the 18-55 kit...(the wider, 62mm filter of the 24-85 is another inconvenience and expense)
So, in the end I think that the best way to think of this lens is a very good 28-105/F4.5 that is very useable at F7.1, and very acceptable at F8-11, which ought to be the goal of any consumer/hobbiest-priced lens...A good general purpose "walkabout" lens, especially useful for parties and events when using a flash @ F7.1-F8
Full Frame images followed by 100% crops...
105/F7.1 USM:200/.2/0
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/8333/7071img3226ffu22.jpg
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/4121/7071img3226lc.jpg
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/918/7071img3226cc.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/1718/7071img3226rc.jpg
28mm/F7.1 USM: 200/.2/0
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/8951/2871img3223ffu22.jpg
http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4018/2871img3223lcu22.jpg
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6743/2871img3223ccu22.jpg
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2730/2871img3223rcu22d.jpg
|
|
|
Jan 16, 2010
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Oct 23, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Very fast focusing (USM motor), decent build quality, compact and light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Average optical quality.
|
|
This was the first zoom lens I got with the EOS-50 kit. It is quite well built and focuses very fast, but that's about as much as it has going for it, since the optical quality is just about average. Today even the cheap "dog-toy" 18-55 IS kit zoom of the 450/500D can destroy this lens in terms of optical quality.
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2009
|
|
UltraVal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Oct 2, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $140.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Quiet focusing USM, good build, colors, range
|
|
Cons:
|
Images seem soft, even stopped down
|
|
Maybe it's just my copy, I'm not sure, but I find this lens nothing to write home about. Most all pics I've taken with it seem so-so. I plan to continue to use it on occasion to hopefully determine whether it's a keeper or if I'll sell it.
|
|
|
Oct 2, 2009
|
|
photoelle
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 1, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 113
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Good aperture range, 3.5-4.5 offers greater flexibility, price.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft indoors, especially at the wide end, zoom allows dust inside the glass, poor contrast.
|
|
I have 2 copies, one made in Japan, one made in Taiwan. The Japanese copy is the heavier of the two. The Taiwanese copy has dust inside the front element lens.
I needed this lens mostly for indoor work, with flash, and thought the aperture range was good for that. However, the pix were inconsistent and lacked contrast, especially at the wide open, wide end range.
Its much better outdoors mostly at f8-16, and is a great general purpose lens, but it can never begin to compare to a 2.8 lens.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2009
|
|
dalephill2
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 26, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 551
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great walk around, sharp, super build
|
|
Cons:
|
no hood
|
|
This is my second 28-105, I sold my other one due to finiancial reasons and missed it ever since. It was superb then as it is now. Its just that good, its every bit as good as some of my other lenses. 55-250, better than the 18-55, and i'd swear its just as good as my 70-200f4, so yeah its a keeper this one, I love it.. not gonna let it go again.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2009
|
|
tonyat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 23, 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 30, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $219.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great range for outdoor events (45-168 ff equiv). Good color reproduction and pretty sharp in its sweet spot (f7-f16). Ring USM is fast and quiet.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not an indoor lens. It is usable wide open, but sharpness and contrast do suffer.
|
|
Some say it is an awkward focal length on 1.6 bodies. I find it quite handy at outdoor events and even for landscapes. The lens really shines outdoors when you can stop it down just a little.
The handling is pretty good and the ring usm is why I can't bring myself to get something else. For the price, there isn't anything else that is as quick.
It can be used indoors, especially if you can hit the subject with flash.
I have used it indoors without flash at my daughter's events and have usable pictures, but this is not where it is at its best. I have found f2.8 and better primes do this job nicer for me.
|
|
|
Jun 30, 2009
|
|
digifilm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2009
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
asdfasdf
|
|
Cons:
|
asdfasdf
|
|
asdfasdf
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2009
|
|
digifilm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2009
|
|
Rjmccutchan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp images, nice zoom range, price
|
|
Cons:
|
none for the price
|
|
I bought this lens at the reccomendations of the reviews on this site, so I thought it was time to post mine.
I am very impressed with this lens. I paid $160USD with a canon A2 and grip attached to it. For the price, this lens produces excellent results. Obviously it is not capable of what the 2.8 lenses can do, but used in the range it is designed for, I could not ask for anything better. I photograph weddings and this is an excellent zoom range for weddings. I think if I had anything wider that 28mm, it would distort too much for group shots, and anything longer than 105mm would be too long to hand hold in available light. When shot wide open, the images tend to be a little soft, but useable. I mostly photograph weddings and personal stuff at 5.6 and up. I have a 50mm 1.8 if I needed. I was really impressed after the first wedding with it. I had a Konica/Minolta before Canon and I never had pictures as clear and sharp as this combination (10D and 28-105).
This lens does not like to be pushed to the extremes, but if you operate somewhere between, you should be pleased with the image quality.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2009
|
|
spentomuch
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 3, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 354
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
When I moved to nikon, I kept 1 canon dslr and 1 lens to play around with, and this is it. Mine is the japanese version.
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2009
|
|
PointNshootr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 13, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 7, 2009
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $220.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Blurry Photos
|
|
i am very disappointed with the sharpness of this lens. Perhaps i have a bad copy???
what i have found is that i can only really achieve adequate sharpness at around F9. wide open is blurry and shockingly the sample shot at F22 was blurry as well.
here are some sample shots, taken with a tripod.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28816055@N05/3422557044/" title="Canon 28-105 II F22 by s1ngletrack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3020/3422557044_ec0af29480.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Canon 28-105 II F22" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28816055@N05/3421746999/" title="Canon 28-105 II F9 by s1ngletrack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3421746999_252feedc77.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Canon 28-105 II F9" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/28816055@N05/3422555232/" title="Canon 28-105 II F3.5 by s1ngletrack, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3656/3422555232_2fb3e38bf5.jpg" width="500" height="333" alt="Canon 28-105 II F3.5" /></a>
|
|
|
Apr 7, 2009
|
|
|
