So what is the real deal with this lens?

[Bootlegger0173]

I have been looking at maybe getting a 28-105 3.5 lens to use as an all around "keep on camera lens" but have been getting conflicting reviews. My delima is that I cannot afford L-series glass, but $200.00 spent on something that doesn't deliver sharp portraits is money wasted. I find hard to believe that Canon would intentionally continue to market a lens that didn't capture good images, but may be wrong. I love my 85mm 2.8 but it certainly lacks the usability of a good zoom. My main target would be candid people shots at events and such, but I still need something capable of sharp headshots that us common folks can afford.

I guess what I am asking is what can I expect from this lens? I'll accept that a zoom has more moving parts so won't be as sharp as a prime, and that L-series glass is probably built better, and may have finer ground and coated optics, but just how good can this lens take portraits, enlarged to 8x10? Any explainations, or opinions would be appreciated, and also, a few sample pics if you have them. Thanks in advance.

KAW.

[number six]

I have that lens (28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USMII). When I first got it I ran a couple of tests and liked the results. At 50mm f/8 its sharpness was identical to a 50 f/1.8 prime. Didn't test at all apertures due to lack of time (the test was of a very detailed resolution chart).

Similar sharpness at 105mm and 28mm, but barrel distortion at 28 was pronounced. Easy enough to fix in PP, but you should be aware of it. No barrel or pincushion distortion at 50 or 105.

-js

[liquefied]

Keep in mind that there are some of us out there who still use film cameras. The 28-105mm is an excellent choice on a film body where L-quality sharpness if of decidedly less concern than us than to the average pixel-obsessed photography-on-the.net'er. Canon makes these lenses because people buy them and many people are satisfied with their performance. And I doubt you would see any terrible lack of sharpness in an 8x10 print from this lens unless you were using a high-quality printer and loupe to check for sharpness.

[Eagle]

You can get good shots with any lens. Canon doesn't make a bad lens, some are just better than others. I am happy with my 28-105, no complaints here. It's a very nice lens for the price.

[Tom W]

The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM is a very good lens, especially when one considers the price. It is a little soft wide open, but sharpens up nicely when stopped down 2/3 stops or so. And the mild softness isn't that bad for most situations.

It has a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end, as it typical for a 4X zoom, but it's not extreme and won't be noticed in most types of shooting.

I had one with my Elan II. Sold it, and missed it's versatality and light weight. Bought another. It's light, has USM, and produces nice color and contrast.

[Bootlegger0173]

Thanks a bunch. I was wondering just what was considered "good enough" for "consumer grade" lenses.

I have a fabulous prime 105 on my Nikon N2000 (still going strong after all these years).

This brings up another good question... am I to understand that digital cameras are more picky with sharpness? Seems like film would be more accurate.

[liquefied]

Digital is only more picky because people pixel-peep with it. You never see someone pulling out a loupe to examine sharpness when they get their one hour film prints from wal-mart.

[Mark_Cohran]

The 28-105 is one of Canon's best consumer grade lenses. It's not an L, but then you don't pay an L price of it either. I used one for years with my film cameras, and only sold my copy last year because I replaced it with a 24-105 f/4L. Get the lens, use it, and you'll probably find it will meet 90% of your needs.

Mark

[Ultimate CC]

i love this lens, i have Ls and this lense still makes it onto the body quite often, especially since its so dam light, its nice for those times when you don't want a heavy L...

[NorCalAl]

Great little lens. I've said it before - one of the best for the money. Not too wide on a crop body tho. But for the money, perhaps you could add a Tokina 19-35. Really nice lens also. And very very reasonable. Then you'd have wide to short tele covered.

[Bootlegger0173]

Thanks for your comments. I don't shoot many really wide shots, so am not too concerned, for the moment.

Also, I don't plan to let the XT be my last camera, but I do plan to run it till it quits. I figure that I am happy with the images that it takes, so by the time I need a new one, and have the money saved up, I'll be amazed with the images that it takes, plus I'll have a better handle on the whole digital arena. Thanks again. I am going to go out today and see if I can test fire one.

[photobitz]

The bad reviews you are hearing may be for the newer 28-105mm 4-5.6 which is truely a dud. The 28-105 3.5-4.5 is a great lens. I use it all the time.

[Bootlegger0173]

Well, today was really just a waste of gas. I went to a place that- according to the clerk - had 2 in stock, and when I got there, I discovered that the only thing in stock was the 70-300mm, which I hear is not good. Either way, it is not what I am looking for right now. Will try ASAP camera in Greenville next week.

[Bootlegger0173]

In another post Shoebox recommended the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM as a good lens. I had read a comparison to the 28-105, and got the impression that the 105 was slightly better. Is this the case?

Also, the 200.00 tag is not my spending limit, just all I have on tap at the moment, and I thought it was a good deal for the buck. I'd be glad to hear any other recommendations for a slightly wide angle/short-to-mid telephoto range, that I should keep an eye out while I'm up there, but I don't really want to spend more than around $400.00 or so at this time. I wanted something that would go at least to the 105mm range, but wanted the clearest quality images for the money. Perhaps I should've said all this from the beginning, but didn't want to do the usual "what lens should I get" route... which, I guess is just about what I ended up asking.

[Andrew Pratt]

I also bought this as my general purpose lens and its a dandy. Its light weight, has USM, is small and takes good pic's. I've been happy with mine and would only consider changing it for something that was wider and longer...like the 18-200 OS from sigma but that's really a different category of lens given its 2X the price and an ultra zoom.