 |
|
|
Jos Tesseract
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 28, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 615
|
|
Review Date: Feb 26, 2010
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Weight and range... i supposed.
|
|
Cons:
|
LOL! (too many - build, price, quality, CA, BD, etc...)
|
|
|
Talk about underachiever. This one is horrid. Canon has made a few budget contenders, but none so bad as this guy. The 18-55, 35-80 and 28-90 all outperform this guy by a long shot.
|
|
 Feb 26, 2010
|
|
kimwolfary
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 29, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
not mich expensive as other optics with same features, very light and compact, USM engine quite responsive, versatile, covers full spectrum of needs.
|
|
Cons:
|
The image quality is awful, colors are dead, contrast is awfully balanced, as result, the image is similar on those found on that cheap $100 consumer cameras.
|
|
|
Have been using this, i bought accidentally but i was really looking for the 3.5 - 4.5, that have same aperture, but really a different build and image quality. Have been using this lens on a Canon Eos 10D, and i immediately noticed the worst quality in front of a Tamron 55-200 i had before... i was surprised of a Canon lens with so poor quality.
|
|
|
Sep 29, 2007
|
|
The Imagician
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2007
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focus: Not bad at very close range -- about minimum focus distance -- with very good light.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft, low contrast at all apertures, focal lengths and shutter speeds.
|
|
|
I'm amazed that Canon would put its logo on such a crappy product. It came attached to a 10D that I picked up in a pawn shop. They refused to take the lens off and lower the price. Over the past two months, I have managed to destroy my good lenses and am stuck with this piece of crap until I can scrape up dough for a nifty fifty.
It's really frustrating to use this thing. I'm a street photographer who loves candids. I've taken shots with this thing that would have been great if i had taken them with the nifty fifty or the 75-300 USMIII.
If someone offers to give you one, spit in their eye.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2007
|
|
ltj123
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 16, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: May 3, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Funny I read reviews and after using this lense off & on. I have not had any issues other then works just fine - Good deal for money, if you're a snob then get the next step up (3.5) or high quality "L" series
|
|
Cons:
|
Rarely I get an out-of-focus shot, but that is rarely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 3, 2007
|
|
purelthium
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 1, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, Light, Great Focal length range
|
|
Cons:
|
Cheap, Light, poor sharpness.
|
|
|
I have the Non-USM version of this lens. I've had it for about a month, and it served me well in Mexico during a business trip, and taking photos at Christmas. This lens is perfect if you don't have much money, and will allow you to have a great compliment to the Kit Lens.
But there are better lenses you could buy than this one. If it's all you can afford, go for it.
|
|
|
Feb 1, 2007
|
|
coolest
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 26, 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 24, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow (both in apature & in focusing speed), poorly constructed, toy-like lens
|
|
|
Mistakenly bought this lens (was wanting to buy 28-105 F3.5-4.5), so played around for a day before gotten rid of this toy lens.
This lens really should not be "declared" by Canon as "a micro-USMII to realize fast, quiet autofocus performance." Because it is simply SLOW.
Compared with 28-105 F3.5-4.5, this lens really is like a toy, and with its quality, its price was considered to me expensive.
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2006
|
|
DaveEP
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 14, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3706
|
|
Review Date: Feb 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
Consumer quality
|
|
|
I was hugely dissapointed with this lens. I bought it as a spur of the moment thing, and will never do that again!
It is no better or worse than the 18-55 kit lens. I used it only once - and that was enough to tell me that I will never use it again.
Shots were soft (consumer) across the whole range.
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2005
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact and light
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor image quality, slow speed, no true ring USM, flimsy construction
|
|
|
Do NOT confuse this lens with the vastly better 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM lens, which beats this lens in all respects - optics, true ring USM and focusing speed and construction. I suspect this lens is probably the successor to the equally inferior 28-90 "pseudo-USM". I tried this in the camera shop where I was hunting for some filters, and they had just got a new batch of the 28-105/4-5.6. When I picked up the lens it felt cheap and crummy like the lowest end 35-80 kit lenses. I put it on the 10D and shot a bit. AF was slow. Images were soft and I couldn't imagine why anyone would buy a lens like this. Of course, it could be that I used a poor sample.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2004
|
|
ChuckyB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Low Price. Good zoom range. Good optics quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not very wide on DSLR. No image stabilization.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2003
|
|
SportsPix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 17, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 152
|
|
Review Date: Apr 6, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
It's got a good working focal range, compact, light, reasonably sharp and cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
This lens does not exist! The lens Canon offers is the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM! seriously the only down side to this is that it's not the sharpest tool and most samples I've owned displayed fairly strong chromatic abberations beyond the outer 1/4 of the image area.
|
|
|
What can I say? This is a very good consumer lens that can cover a lot of territory at a very reasonable price! Not an "L" class lens by any stretch of the imagination but a solid, usable piece of glass. I've owned several and sold them only to buy another one!
|
|
|
Apr 6, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
10
|
113798
|
Feb 26, 2010
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
40% of reviewers
|
$146.00
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
4.00
|
4.29
|
3.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
