Nostalgic EF Lens - 35-105

MintMar
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Nostalgic EF Lens - 35-105

IlyaSnopchenko wrote:
Oh yes, the first iteration 28-80 USM was the one that had the better build quality before the model was moved way downmarket (though not all the way down, I guess, because there were worse things in the lineup). The 24-85 was reported to be a good deal better than the 28-105 for IQ; and mine is a good one. I'm about to sort a bunch of photos from today's skiing event (1900ish files, around 24GB total... it'll be fun), much of which was done with the 24-85 on either 1D Mark IV or Z9. Let's see how well it...Show more →

The first 28-80 USM is an interesting lens, while it has ring USM the front element rotates. It's good enough compromise lens even today, although it's flaring badly and loses contrast quickly when pointed to towards the light source. I have the silver 24-85 to go with a silver 400D, the lens is pretty good on APS-C, on FF is not really good. Unfortunately, the silver version is not better than the black version, at one time I had both to compare.

Feb 25, 2024 at 12:30 PM

IlyaSnopchenko
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Nostalgic EF Lens - 35-105

garyvot wrote:
I also had a copy of the 24-85 for a time back in the 5D / 5D II era.

It was kind of a perfect focal length range, really. 85mm is long enough to feel like a true portrait lens (vs. 70mm), and 24mm verges on ultrawide territory. Very versatile. Too bad there's not a modern version. I might choose a 24-85 f/4L over a 24-105L, assuming it was smaller and lighter enough to make a difference.

Well, since the 24-70/4L wasn't a great deal smaller than the 24-105L, I think the answer is clear.
I'd say - from sorting the photos - that the 24-85 did pretty well today on the skiing event. Actually I took three lenses (also the 16-35 and 100-400; I thought about getting by with just these two, but thankfully decided against it at the 11th hour), and all were almost equally useful, which is kind of unusual in my experience.
P.S. DPReview - back in the times when they were actually evaluating lenses - has determined that the actual focal length of the 24-85 is 25-80. Well, it's no news that the manufacturers fudge the focal lengths, especially when it concerns inexpensive lenses, but... just FYI. Still, I would say the lens is fine, and pairs well with the 100-400 (or even with the 16-35 when the UWA zoom is on an FF body and the 24-85 is on the APS-H one... the overlap becomes barely perceptible. Although I would rather have the IBIS of the Z9 behind the 24-85).

Feb 25, 2024 at 01:36 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.