 |
|
|
brogan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 23, 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 10, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
small, light, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
cheap, plasticy
|
|
|
I got this lens over the past weekend from a family member who used it once four years ago and then put the camer (3000N) and lens away. it is in the best condiction you can get for a second hand lens. yes it is povity model, but the shots I have taken, it looks like a capable lens. it is not L glass but for something I got for free, it is a bargin...it is also a good start off lens as it falls in the all round focal length. I gave it to my girlfriend who just loves it!!!!! as with all of us who started, there will come a day when she will want to upgrade.
I found the 28-80 rather fast at auto focus, i ow a tokina 20-35, and this lens compairs.
this lens is perfect for her with her 20D as she is just starting out and it would not be cleaver to spend mega money on expensive bodies and lenses if not interested in photography.
I was ready to buy this lens second hand for R600.00
(I recommend this lens to people who are just starting out with photography and want to get a feel for it)
|
|
 Apr 10, 2012
|
|
Mr645
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1386
|
|
Review Date: Oct 10, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $10.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Light weight, cheap
|
|
Cons:
|
decent sharpness at around F8 and F11, poor contrast, poor construction
|
|
|
Picked up this lens for $40, and it also came with an EOS Elan II and off brand 28-200. All three items like new. Hard to pass up, but the items will likely end up on Ebay in the near future
|
|
|
Oct 10, 2009
|
|
drew.bowser
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1998
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
good focal length..
|
|
Cons:
|
too many
|
|
|
Well this lens is cheaply built, horrible image quality, however the focal length is nice. not much more to say about it, you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2006
|
|
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Its free with the camera
|
|
Cons:
|
Its free with the camera
|
|
|
This lens is the PLASTIC UNFANTASTIC. I remmeber getting this lens thrown in free when I bought a used Canon Rebel G (the first one) and it was absolute garbage. It did not work well for a film camera with prints 4X6 and I can not see how this lens would work at all for a digital SLR camera. It was so bad that I bought a 17 year old EOS lens to replace it that was L lens quality compared to this cheap lens. It simply was the worst lens I ever owned. AVOID
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2006
|
|
Jan Waumans
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 53
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Low price
|
|
Cons:
|
Low contrast
|
|
|
I've got this lens with my EOS 500N 10 years ago.
On the 400D the resolution is IMO comparable to the 18-55 kit lens, while contrast and colors are weaker.
This can be corrected afterwards.
Not bad as a temporary solution at a (very) low price.
It takes photos !
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2006
|
|
photobitz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 4, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Lightweight. Moderately compact.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very plastic feel. Not keen on the construction - focus ring at end of lens.
|
|
|
I have the USM version of the MkII which came with my EOS50 back in the day. I find it to be a very sharp lens compared to some of the rubbish Canon is producing these days. OK, so it won't compete with an "L" series lens, but for kit, it's pretty darn good.
In the MkII Canon went for a lightweight design using composite plastics instead of metal which although works great, feels very flimsy in use. I am not keen at all on the focus ring being on the front element - easy to stick your grubby mits on the glass when you are trying to manual focus and it makes it look like a toy.
The MkI was much better constructed in my opinion but of course it weighs twice as much.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2006
|
|
johnhopkins
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 17, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Sep 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap. Small. Light. Decent performance at 28mm and good resolution anywhere in its range at f/11.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor performance towards 70mm especially in the corners (except at f/11). Colour not the best.
|
|
|
I tested a friend’s 28-80 recently against my Canon 24-70L and a Sigma 28-70 mm f/2.8 DG. The results make me think this lens’ lowly rating on this forum is overdone. The Canon 28-80 may be a kit lens but it comfortably outperformed the Sigma zoom in my tripod-mounted test shots at all apertures within its limits at 28mm, 50mm and 70mm.
The 28-80 could not match the Canon 24-70L in colour and contrast, but at f/11 there was no difference in resolution anywhere in the zoom range. At 28mm the 28-80 performed pretty respectably (though not as well) relative to the L zoom. Resolution at f/11 was identical to the L and only a little worse at f/5.6-f/8.
Performance drops off further in the zoom range. At 50mm the 28-80 performed as well as the 24-70L at f/8-11 but resolution tailed off at f/5.6 and especially at f/4.5. The corners especially were poor.
At 70mm the 28-80 only really performed well at f/11. Resolution was still OKish at f/8 but tailed off badly at f/5.6. It might still be OK for 4x6 prints but the corner sharpness (even on a 1.6x digital) becomes very bad at f5/6 & 70mm and is very noticeable on a monitor or large prints.
I came to a three conclusions regarding this lens:-
1. If used at f/11 anywhere in its zoom range or at f5.6-f/11 at 28mm then this lens can produce very decent results. Set the camera to Aperture Priority f/11 and leave it there if possible.
2. An inexpensive 50mm prime would be a really nice complement to this zoom making up for its deficiencies at the longer end and giving a low-light option.
3. If you do upgrade from this lens be prepared to go for real quality. Otherwise you may spend quite a reasonable amount of money (the Sigma 28-70 is £250 on the UK high street) and actually end up with something that is worse.
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2005
|
|
ToxicBug
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 36
|
|
Review Date: Jul 30, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Plastic, not sharp at all, terrible optical quality, extremely hard to manually focus with it.
|
|
|
I got this lens with a Rebel 2000 when I first started out in photography. I thought it was cool, but later I bought a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX Macro and never used this abysmal lens again. Its optical quality cannot stand near a decent piece of glass. I sold this lens for $60 CAD when I got my 20D since it was gathering dust in my closet. Useless lens.
|
|
|
Jul 30, 2005
|
|
serpico
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 18
|
|
Review Date: Dec 26, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, part of my EOS 300v kit
|
|
Cons:
|
hard to say, I'm still a beginner
|
|
|
I'm a beginner and I bought this film SLR kit earlier this year to learn photography. My camera is the EOS Rebel Ti 300v and the lens I got was the newer model EF 28-90mm f/1.4-5.6 II. After spending more time reading this site and others, I'm starting to think it's the lens and not me in regards to my photos. I wouldn't recommend buying this lens unless it came with your camera.
I'm thinking of upgrading to the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 II USM Lens but did notice that Sigma 70-300mm / f/4-5.6 DL AF Lens Super II is cheaper and better for my budget. Not sure what to do, but I suppose that's the fun of being a beginner, to learn !
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2004
|
|
Derek_S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 22, 2003
Location: N/A
Posts: 464
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
If you bought one of the Canon film kits, this might've came in free; the build is somewhat solid for what it is
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I won't beat around the bush - the resolving capabilities border on abysmal. A few experienced photographers will tell you that most lenses outresolve their users, and this lens just might be the exception that proves the rule. I could swear a few of my primes are sharper wide open than this lens stopped down. Color rendition is pretty good for greenery, but so - so for portraits.
So if it performs badly, exactly what is it's purpose?
Aside from a "plug-and-play" mentality as a kit lens, I believe Canon included this as their "Whitman's focal length sampler" - a testing ground for the amateur shooter to find what focal length they use. It just about covers the focal lengths that the average joe will use, and if you want a better performing focal length, you've got the option of upgrading to primes or that 24-70L waiting for you (and your wallet). On that basis, I think it succeeds well.
Besides, I think it's a better idea to just shoot and work on your compositional skills with a crap lens than to be a sharpness whore and do nothing but shoot brick walls and MTF charts.
I recommend this lens with three cautionary bits :
-Get the 50mm f/1.8 first, it's a much better value in my opinion
-Do not pay over 50 bucks for it
-You shoot 35mm film more than you do digitally. On 4x6 film prints, this is alright.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2004
|
|
Vance
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 6, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 95
|
|
Review Date: Aug 7, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Cheap, good beginner lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow on the AF
|
|
|
Not a bad lens for a beginner, I've taken some pretty good shots with it. AF is a little slow, sometimes you get impatient. Cheap price though.
|
|
|
Aug 7, 2004
|
|
Canon Fan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 10, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $65.00
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good cheap effective starter kit lense.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft slow focus, cheap feel. Over time I have experienced the focus tube loosening to the point that when the AF servo stops the tube shifts and loses focus.
|
|
|
For a beginner or photo's for the web this lense seems to be a good "beater" piece of glass.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2004
|
|
johnmate
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 13, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Good for non digital SLR
|
|
Cons:
|
Creates soft images on the 10D
|
|
|
I had this lens with my old EOS 300. Used it on the 10D but the pictures where soft.
Currently I use the EF 50mm 1.8 II. Much sharper!
|
|
|
Apr 13, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
13
|
107076
|
Apr 10, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
62% of reviewers
|
$46.67
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
3.13
|
6.75
|
4.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
