EOS 28mm -105mm Zoom Lens

[douglas_vitello]

I'm not a big fan of zoom lenses in particular but must admit the Canon EOS

28mm - 105mm 3.5 - 4.5 II USM lens has to be about the best lens value out

there, bar none.USM,full time manual "touch up",macro,ultra fast focus lock

even in low light,great optics and range,super compact,58mm affordable filter

size,etc,etc.,all for less than $225 US brand new.This thing even works

fantastic on my ancient EOS 630 bodies.I wonder how they managed to put

together such a astounding package for such a low price.How do other board

members rate this lens?

[jim_d5]

Ahh, indeed, Canon's 28-105 is a great lens and a good value. I have had a mk. I for more than a decade. The mk. I and II are the same, tho the II has better damped zooming action and looks a little different. I have a II as well! Image quality is good for such a low priced zoom. It is certainly soft on the edges but not too bad. I use it exclusively as a travel lens now that I have some L glass. I find the focal range on my 1.6x crop bodies to be acceptable for short trips to the coast, etc.

 

It is quite rugged too! I have managed to drop, kick, and slam my mk. I into to a tripod leg (15 years old) and it still works just fine, though the zooming action is a little clunkier. And yes, I like to use it on all my EOS cameras. I know many others, pros too, who adore this lens.

 

The only other EOS-age product that gets similar (somewhat odd) admiration is the A2/A2E, which seemingly everyone who has been in the Canon community since the eighties has owned and loved. For some reason we cannot part with that camera or this lens. Timeless I suppose, or just cheap thrills?

[Stock-Photos]

I used a 28-105 on my Canon "film" Elan. My only complaint was distortion at the wide end. I then used the lens for a couple of years on a 10D and did not really have any complaints.

 

After upgrading to a 24-105 L IS (not in the same league) I found the L series 24-105 produced image with much better contrast, color and sharpness.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I'm not a big fan of zoom lenses in particular</i></p><p>Have you used any of the constant maximum aperture L zooms?</p>

[jim_d5]

Constant aperture L zooms are excellent and rival some of the L primes depending on the lens. If not, then you have a bad copy, because my 70-200 f/4L says otherwise!

[phyrpowr]

Bang-for-bucks, probably the best in Canon's lineup

[dogbert]

It seems Canon has forgotten how to make lenses in this price range. Instead we get updated 85/1.2 Ls and 50/1.2 Ls, which I am sure are nice, but not that interesting for hobbiests like me.

[shambrick007]

It took me three tries to get a decent used copy of the 28-70/2.8 for my 5D. If the 3rd one turned out to be a dud, I wuda back to the trusty 28-105!

[bryn_evans]

Well J.D it looks like I picked my kit well because I have the EOS5 (A2E) matched to the 28-105mk2 and I find it a great set up the VG10 grip improves the handling well. I dumped the std 28-80 after I bought a 50mm 1.8 and realised that everything I took with the std zoom looked terrible in comparison. I highly recommmend the 28-105 mk2, I hired a 28-70 2.8L for a wedding job a while back and on enlargements of 7x10" there was only a slight increase in sharpness with the L lens to the extent that I wouldnt bother hiring one again as im happy enough with the 28-105 and it does give you that useful extra zoom length. I wouldnt mind trying out the 24-105 f4L sometime, has anybody any experience of this lens?

[terry_smith2]

Actually, the older 35-105/3.5-4.5 was better optically, especially at the long end. When the EOS line was introduced, Canon had a good stable of consumer zooms with metal mounts and 3.5-4.5 apetures. They included 28-70, 35-70, 35-105, 35-135, 50-200, and 70-210 (straight f4). All of these had at least decent optics and the 28-70 is still considered to be a great performer today. The 28-105 3.5-4.5 belongs to the following generation hat had USM motors. They had better handling but most were not that good optically.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>It seems Canon has forgotten how to make lenses in this price range</i></

p><p>More likely, they've decided the margin isn't that great on them, and it makes better

business sense to release updates to the others.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>I wonder how they managed to put together such a astounding package for such a low price.</cite>

 

<p>Well, the design's 15 years old and (IIRC) it was available as an upscale kit lens with the EOS 5/A2/A2e. So I take it Canon has sold a whole bunch of these and long ago recouped the design and tooling costs, and that can help a lot in keeping the price reasonable.</p>

 

<p>This was the first lens I got when I bought an EOS body. Nice lens, definitely above average among consumer zoom lenses. It can't keep up with an L zoom, but then again, you can't get an L zoom at anywhere near that price.</p>

 

<cite>It seems Canon has forgotten how to make lenses in this price range. Instead we get updated 85/1.2 Ls and 50/1.2 Ls, which I am sure are nice, but not that interesting for hobbiests like me.</cite>

 

<p>OK, I'll bite. What lens in this price range is missing from Canon's lineup? The only one I can think of would be an EF-S equivalent to the 28-105: something between the kit lens (18-55, equivalent to a 28-90 full-frame kit lens) and the ~5x IS zoom (17-85, equivalent to the 28-135). But Canon's EF-S lenses seem to carry a price premium even though the materials costs are lower so even if Canon were to introduce an EF-S 17-65/3.5-4.5 USM it would like come in somewhere around USD350.</p>

[david_barts1]

It was my first ever EF lens, along with a 50/1.8 II. I'm no great expert but soon noticed that the slides taken with the 50 would 'bite' while those from the 28-105 would not. So I preferred the 50 despite its handling shortcomings and have since built up a collection of cheap primes. However when I finally got to put the 28-105 on eBay a few months ago I received over $220 for it, so no ill feelings at all.