28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM Lens rather dissapointing. PLEASE HELP

[Saber]

I just purchased a used 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM lens.

After reading plenty of reports everyone said that it was a great lens to have.
However after taking a few pics I have found it to be a little dissapointing at large aperture setting. See below. Both images have been croped.

This pic was taken at 1/60sec at f4.5. Notice how out of focus this pic is. It did this on all the pics taken.

http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/new%20lens%20F4.5.jpg

And this one was taken at 1/60sec at F10. It is so much clearer.
http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/new%20lens%20F10.jpg

It there someting wrong with my lens. This seems very odd.

Can anyone help!!!!

[Cadwell]

Mmm... many lenses are "soft" wide open. That does look to be somewhat extreme though. Unfortunately I don't have that lens so I can't comment on whether that is normal for it or not.

[Tom W]

It does appear pretty soft at f/4.5. Is that the full image, or a crop of the full image?

My copy softens a bit wide open, but not to that extent. Here's a test shot I took with my 28-105 at 50 mm, f/4.0, 100% crop:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/28_105_f4_topcrop.jpg


The crop is taken from this picture here:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/28_105_f4_full.jpg

This should be more of what to expect, though I might be lucky enough to have gotten an above average copy.

PS - do NOT make fun of my "monster disco" CD. :D

[Cadwell]

PS - do NOT make fun of my "monster disco" CD. :D

I don't see why not :P Displaying a picture with one of those in it is kinda like wearing a sign on your back saying "Kick Me" :p ;)

(I suppose the Arlo Guthrie and John Coltrane CDs restore your "cred" somewhat though ;) )

[Scottes]

(I suppose the Arlo Guthrie and John Coltrane CDs restore your "cred" somewhat though ;) )

Not nearly enough. By a long shot.

Tom's going to be fighting for months just to get back to a point of having no credibility whatsoever. And *then* it'll take a dozen ruler shots to get credibility again.

[Jim_T]

It looks too soft at f/4.5

I just shot the box mine came in at f/4.5 at about 50mm (See below). My 50mm f/1.8 prime at f/8.0, will do a FAR better job.... But the image is not as bad as your shot at f/4.5.. Of course, stopped down, this lens will perfrom much better... Which one would expect from a budget mid range zoom.

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/28-105crop.jpg

If you aren't getting better results, then you may have to take the lens back.. That first picture is really bad.

[Chazs]

I had the very same problem with a Canon 28-80. After a month of experimenting with many lenses and settings I took it back to my local camera store and traded it for a different lens (same 28-80 though). Hundreds of times improvement. Looks like I had a lens that had an element out of alignment (or something). If it's not too late, swap it out for another one.

[Saber]

Just to ad a bit more info.

Those shots were taken at full zoom 105mm and then croped.
I was probably about 5-6ft away from the box.

Before I take it to canon to get it looked at I just wanted to see if you guys though it was a bit to soft. I think so.

I suppose there is really nothing I can do about it other then to not shot at low aperture settings.

It is still a pretty good mid range zoom lens.

[Sendide]

just one more test to do maybe before drawing any conclusion. at large aperture, you have less DOF, and then maybe it's a focusing problem. try to take some pictures wide open with some items in front and behind (but not too much) the focused subject. check then if it's not a focusing issue. I had almost the same problem with my 10D and the same lens. by using other lenses I realized it was the camera. thanks to the warranty, everything is now perfect.
regards
Khalid

[PhotosGuy]

PS - do NOT make fun of my "monster disco" CD.

So...


...how about "The Best of Arlo Guthrie"? Is that fair game?

[Saber]

Here is some more shots I took today.

This one is with the 28-105mm, 1/60, 4.5, 28mm
It looks so washed out and fussy.

http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/new%20lens%20test%201.jpg

This one was again taken with my crappy 28-90mm, (same settings as above).
You be the judge but this one looks much better.
http://www.puretouch.com.au/pictures/old%20lens%20test%201.jpg


Is it the lens. Because it was bought used there is no warrenty. Is it worth taking it to as service centre to get cleaned.

Everyone raved on about how good this lens should be but is is no better then the cheap $100 one.

Am I doing somthing wrong.

Thanks

[PhotosGuy]

I agree that the 2nd pic is much clearer. Have you taken it off the cam & looked through it to see if there's anything growing in there? There's a type of mold/fungus that can live on the interior lens coatings. I wouldn't expect to see it on a 2-3 year old lens, but it's possible.

[Guillermo Freige]

I think a trip to Canon is mandatory. Even my slightly worse 5 years old and heavily used 28-135 IS takes better shots at 28mm and f/3.5 than your 28-105 at f/4.5, and at f/4.5 image improves a lot. I've compared it with my own 18-55 at 28mm at f/4.5 (my closest lens in quality to your 28-90) and the image is noticeably worse compared to the 28-135 at f/4.5, and even slightly worse (more ghosting) compared to the one taken at f/3.5. At 28mm the 18-55 at f/4.5 works wideopen, so shooting conditions are similar to the 28-90 too.

Those are unprocessed 100% crops
18-55 28mm f/4.5
http://gfreige.homelinux.org/18-55at4_5.jpg

28-135IS 28mm f/3.5
http://gfreige.homelinux.org/28-135ISat3_5.jpg

28-135IS 28mm f/4.5
http://gfreige.homelinux.org/28-135ISat4_5.jpg