|
|
gaalpoel
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 25, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic mount.
|
|
Recently I got the EF 28-90 F/4-5.6 II (non USM) as a present. Actually I didn't think I would be using this little lens, I did have a Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 EX DG altogether.
But to my surprise this lens is a real killer. It's very, very lightweight. It's extremely sharp corner to corner, and most of all, it made me realise I didn't need the F/2.8 of the Sigma at all. So I sold the Sigma and now I am shooting happily with this magnificent piece of technique.
It's even sharper than my EF 50 1.8 II at F/5.6 (wich is wide-open at certain apertures on the 28-90). So, therefore I think I can say this is one very good lens.
I'm glad I gave it a fair chance, and can't understand the bad comments on it.
|
|
 Aug 13, 2007
|
|
Emre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 9, 2005
Location: Turkey
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
FAST quiet
|
|
Cons:
|
quality sucks f4.0-5.6
|
|
I found this lens in Dubai.I cannot say I bouth it because seller gave me this lens free with a $200 dollar eos 30 film camera.
I used this lens on my digital rebel.I was the worst image quality i have ever seen.I had also been using 18-50mm F3.5-5.6 because of my technical limitations but even 18-55 is ten time better than this lens in the state of image quality.
But this is the fastest lens I have ever seen.If you are tring to cacht a decisive moment from a moving object it will be the fastest and most efficient lens.it works perfect with Eos digital rebel s ai servo focus.
I dont know is it important but this lens is really quiet too.
my suggest is buying this lens if you are new at photogprahy.But if you are professional dont spend money this lens sellers will give you this lens if you buy a camera that is above than 200 dolars as a kit lens.
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2006
|
|
patrickwils
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
light, useful range, DC version is cheap and has silent & fast focusing like the USM. 10D focuses accurately with it. D30 likes it too, which it actually fits very well to because of the D30's 3Mp resolution.
Good sharpness from f/6.3 onwards as long as you use it in the 35-80 mm range!
|
|
Cons:
|
wobbly front element which rotates when focusing
Forget the USM version (DC is cheaper & much more worth its lower price)
Small DOF not possible because of small aperture.
28-35 and 80-90 mm range are clearly add-ons: poor sharpness, vignetting and distorsions
|
|
It is not as bad as is often said, but I seem to have a good copy. For beginners on a limited budget who want to start with a 2nd hand DSLR like the old D30 (which I still can fully recommend if you can find it for $300-350!).
The 28-90 replaced my old EF 35-105 which was full of dust and unsharp in the bottom right; I was happily surprised with the improved sharpness and the light weight has its pluses too.
I like the silent quick & precise focusing (don't touch the front element after having focused as it will wobble out of focus again..) I think only Canon has reliable focusing at this price level; Sigma comes nowhere near.
Forget the USM version: it is not better, nor faster, nor quieter, but it costs 50% more, and that is a waste of money, since we're talking budget lens here. If you are prepared to pay more for a lens, you'd better spend it to the next quality level.
Contrast is rather poor compared to the 24-85, but that one is known for good contrast and costs 3-4x as much.
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2005
|
|
Panthera
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 20, 2005
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, lightweight, small
|
|
Cons:
|
Flare, slow, af gets stuck
|
|
This was my first standard zoom lens. Bought it with my camera to save some money, but it's not worth the (even low) price.
Most irritating was the flare that comes with it, even with the lenshood it was inavoidable. Pics are not very sharp, especially the ones in close-up. The AF-motor (I had the none USM version) got stuck more then once. I had to manually focus one time before I could get the AF working again.
For me it was to light, camera doesn't balance very well. I replaced this lens with the ef 28-135 IS and that one is compared to the 28-90 a very good lens.
Could not recommend this one to anyone, unless you can't afford a better one. It's a starters' lens that you will replace as soon as you can, believe me.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2005
|
|
fletcher8969
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Aug 27, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Very inexpensive, light and compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
The image quality is pretty mediocre. The build is certainly cheap but what I would expect for the amount of money you're spending.
|
|
I got this lense as a gift with my Elan 7 - my first SLR in 20 years. I shot a couple of dozen rolls with this lense and loved many of the pictures I got with it. It was only after getting my 10D and reading up on lenses that I realized this was a very cheap entry level zoom. After comparing it to a 50mm 1.4 and a few other L lenses I realized that pictures could be much better than lense was capable of capturing.
I gave this lense away. I don't think it's terrible but there are so many other reasonably price lenses out there that are much better and I just ended up never using it. If it comes with a kit and it's all you've got for a while it's not the end of the world. I still love some of the pictures I shot with this lense but now I know better and would use something else.
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2004
|
|
mgholson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 37
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $50.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, good autofocus
|
|
Cons:
|
Everything else
|
|
Bought this as my first canon lens for my first D-SLR. First few pictures I took with it seemed pretty good, until I started comparing them to other pictures. Focus is very soft, colors loose saturation, pictures just seem lifeless when taken with this lens. I've seen low end point and shoot zooms with better optics them this. Of course I only paid 50 bucks but that still seems like a rip off.
On the plus side if you use maximum zoom and get really close to things it seems to make OK macros
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
It is light and cheap! I could take a lot nice macro photos with it!!! The phocus range of the zoom is very confortable..
|
|
Cons:
|
Some time made "ERROR 99" on my EOS 10D! The phocus is quick but not precise.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2004
|
|
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
It is light and cheap! I could take a lot nice macro photos with it!!! The phocus range of the zoom is very confortable..
|
|
Cons:
|
Some time made "ERROR 99" on my EOS 10D! The phocus is quick but not precise.
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2004
|
|
Write In
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Jun 22, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Well, despite what everyone else said, this lens seems to have perfectly fine quality. Many of my images are crisp and clear. Fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Very flimsy. Oviously cheap.
|
|
This lens seems fine despite what everyone else said. (look to positive aspects)
The lens does feel cheap though and I would like a better built lens
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2004
|
|
Apple.XPan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 8, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Much better lens then anticipated. (tested with digital EOS 10 D). Sharp at 90 mm F 5.6, very sharp at F8. Definitely better then it's reputation. There is no real optical drawback with plastic lenses (think of EF 50/1.8 II and many others)
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow apertures of course. 28 mm at F 4 little bit on the weak side (soft) in the corners. Frontlens unprotected - lenshood a must.
|
|
When I read the reviews about this lens, I thought I will not even look at this lens if it's included with a camera. So I didn't for several month.
Today I used it: with such low expectations I am now surprised how well this lens performs (on a EOS 10 D). Since it was included with a EOS 3000V, there is not much to discuss about a loss: Use this lens if you feel it renders sharp. Don't use it, if you feel it's bad. Plain easy.
I mean this is not a lens you go out and buy - but since it is most likely included with a camera - you can actually use it. Focus carefully, because the effort always pays off in your pictures.
People often complaining about "cheap plastic construction". Why ? Does this really matter ? (I know it does, but does it matter that much, I mean ?) Today's plastics are so much better then ever, and got nothing to do with the optical performance. I think we may underestimate several lenses only because they're cheap and got a lot of plastic.
|
|
|
Jun 8, 2004
|
|
paulinus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 12, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: May 12, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
It came with the camara!
|
|
Cons:
|
I spent 3 months thinking there was something wrong with my camera, it's not good.
|
|
OK, so I'm a novice in photography terms. I upgraded from an old EOS5000 to a EOS300v (rebel). I kept a Sigma zoom lens, but had to send it away for 3 months to get it rechipped. In the meantime I used the 28-90 lens - it is awful. I honestly thought there was something wrong with the camera - and even tried different film processors. It wasn't until I got my Sigma back that I realised the difference. It's a real shame you have to learn the hard way!
|
|
|
May 12, 2004
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 304
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, small filter size, light
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap plastic construction, poor image quality.
|
|
One needs to keep in mind that this lens is thrown in as a "kit" lens with cameras and lower expectations about performance, image quality, AF and everything else. Optics are mediocre at best. I'd donate this lens even if I got it free.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2004
|
|
|
