Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by jp_p, Jul 2, 2005.

  1. Hello:


    I got a 350D with a 18-55 kit

    I got (for a week) a Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II old lens...I am
    impressed with the sharpness of this lens...

    I was going to buy a 28-105 f3.5-4.5 lens, but I was told that this
    Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is sharper...

    My question is...What lens can I buy (not L...sorry) to get that
    sharpness...

    With many thanks in advance

    JP
     
  2. Interesting. I am on the quest for a sharper standard zoom than my pretty decent EF 28-105mm and the old 28-70mm is a gem if you can get it, albeit no USM. Pity Canon does not make a 24 or 28-70mm f/4 L, as that would be ideal...

    Tamron and Sigma offer f/2.8 zooms in that range, but I have been reading mixed reviews on them.

    The battleship EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L seems to be the king.
     
  3. Over the years I have had three Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II lenses. I found them to be about as sharp as the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (which I have had two of), but not any sharper. The Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM has a better range, much faster focus, etc.

    There was quite a cult following of this lens in former years, and the internet seemed to amplify it's "legendary status," but in reality it didn't live up to it's hype. It is a nice lens, and reasonably sharp, but the same is said of the Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. The best thing about the Canon EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 II is the *low price* it usually commands on ebay.

    Note that we're not comparing it to the newer designed Canon EF 28-70mm f/4-5.6 (USM or not), which is inferior and less expensive.
     
  4. Thank you very much Ronald and Jim...It is good to hear that th 28-105 is also as sharp as the 28-70

    I like also Tamron 28-75, but as you I heared different histories about quality of this lens...

    I think, I going to buy the 28-105...My other candidate was the 24-85...it has a different range...More wide, but less tele...Anyway, I am very interested in sharpness

    Thank you very much...

    JP
     
  5. >> Anyway, I am very interested in sharpness


    Reminds me of someone :)


    True story. I have a friend with 24-85. He asked me what to buy next and I replied 135/2.8 SF to get more tele (we both shoot film). He didn't listen to me and bought a 85/1.8. He recently bought from me 24/2.8 and said in a few more months he plan on buying my 35/2 as well.....


    I think that Canon primes and L lenses should all bear a note saying: "Beware! Addictive substance!". Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them.

    Happy shooting ,
    Yakim.
     
  6. According to the tests published in Chasseur d'Images, both versions of the old Canon 28-70 3.5-4.5 are the sharpest consumer zooms Canon ever produced. the model II is a little better than the model I, but you pay for it somewhere else. The model I has metal internal gears, which became plastic on the model II. Now for the fun part. This old Canon. I have one and it is the standard lens on my D30 and sometimes gets used on my EOS 3. The sharpness, distortion, and vignettage are of the same order as the Sigma, Tamron and Tokina 28-70/2.8 lenses of the day. Maybe I should have a look in my test files and compare it to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and the newest Sigma 28-70/2.8. The point here is the lens gives entry-level pro performance for a lot less money, size, and weight. The only thing better in this focal range is the Canon 28-70/2.8L which even today has no rival. It could be like everything else, there are good and bad examples out there and that may explain the opinion of one of the above posts. I wouldn't trade mine for anything. If it ever quits, then it's off to eBay for another one.
     
  7. Many of those older non-USM optics Canon made were stunning performers. Classic examples are the 50-200 L and the more recently-discontinued 100-300 L. The 28-70 we are discussing, while not an L, was a great lens - I'm sure it outperforms my good old 28-105. I had a friend who worked with me in a camera retail establishment and he had one.

    I wonder if he still has it - might be time to call him an see if he wants to part with it.
     
  8. Well, in spite of the rave reviews, I still don't think it lives up to it's hype. Mine were never that good.

    But another thought is that this lens is getting quite old for a modern consumer zoom with plastic gears & cams, and reliability can be a real problem with them. Two of the ones that I have had (one of which I still have) have developed sticky spots on the zoom mechanism. Feels like a cam follower is loose and gets hung up in one area. The one lens eventually just fell apart inside, but the other was still working last time I used it. If you decide to get one make sure it's zoom & focus mechanisms are still in smooth working order.

    BTW, the 18-55 kit lens is quite good when stopped down to f/8. Are you sure you need to replace it? If you do, the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is sharper & faster.
     
  9. OK, I went back to the Chasseur d'Image test sheets and compated the old Canon 28-70/3.5-4.5 to the latest 28-70 or 28-75 /2.8 lenses from Sigma and Tamron.

    Sigma 28-70/2.8 FX DG, not HSM. The Sigma was lightly aheead with both lenses wide open at 28mm. I'm looking at sharpness, distortion, and vignettage. At 5.6 they wer equal. At 8 the Canon was a little better overall. At 50mm and at F4, 5.6, and 8, the Canon was a little ahead overall. At 70 mm 4.0 Sigma or 4.5 Canon, the Canon was much better. AT 5.6 and 8, the Sigma almost caught up.

    Tamron 28-75/2.8. The Tamron was somewhat better with both lenses wide open. At 5.6 the Tamron was a little ahead. At F8, the Canon was the clear winner. At 50 mm at F 4, they were judged even. At F8 the CAnon was a little ahead. At 70/75 mm at F 4 for Tamron or 4.5 for Canon, the CAnon was quite a bit better. It held on to its lead at 5.6 and 8 but the margin was smaller.

    OK, the Canon is a 3.5-4.5 lens and not a 2.8 all the way through. The other two lenses had less distortion at 28mm than the Canon but all were close at 50 mm and above. As I said in my post above, I'm not getting rid of mine anytime soon. I also had a Canon 28-70/2.8L. It died from years of abuse and hard work. I replaced it with the 28-70/3.5-4.5 and for film a Tamron 28-105/2.8. It's no L lens, but it does a very good job and I really like the longer focal range. I don't have to change to the 70-200/2.8 L nearly as often as before.
     
  10. Hi, has any of you noticed that this lens is a bit of power consuming? Mine seems so on my Canon 300D. Thanks.

    Raymond
     
  11. This is definitely better than my 400D 18-55mm kit. It's a little bit sharper especially on corners, less purlpe fringing, less vignetting, better colors. Not as wide as the 18-55. Cheap. Love this lens! I also have the 24mm 2.8 prime, which is sharper on the center.
     

Share This Page