hansley_yunez Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hi, im curious to see pics taken by other people using the 28-105mm USM lens. This is the lens i currently have, and i just want to know what kind of pics its capable of. Unfortunately photo.net doesnt allow you to view pics by equipment thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gareth_harper Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 72dpi ain't gonna tell you much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
citizensmith1664875108 Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It's a decent lens. In the Canon line up the only non-L zoom optically better than it is probably the 28-135IS. Its got a decent range, but at f3.5-4.5 isn't really fast enough to be counted as a decent portrait lens. However, seeing pictures taken with it will tell you more about the ability of the photographer than the lens itself. It's a good lens, you can trust it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gundars_kulups Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Go to www.photosig.com. You can browse pictures by lens there (and plenty of other categories as well). Gundars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hooked on velvia Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Check out this review and samples from a Photonetter, http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm#28-105Anchor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 You could search for reviews for this lens on this site (there is one long, and several short user reviews on several pages), go through the comments on the review, and click on the names of those who indicate that they have the lens, and take a look at their uploaded photos. Since this is a cheap lens, the chances are that they really have it, and they are not just speculating... Here are two to het you started...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Oh and, do not bother using this lens at large apertures (as in wide open...), especially at the wide end.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgpinc Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Lot of pictures posted on www.photosig.com. Quality is uneven but a lot of energy there. They list photos by camera, lens, film and other ways. Probably have to join to view pics but free to join and post. This is not a recommendation necessarily but they do have several hundred pics listed under EOS 28-105mm and may be worth a look. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maureen_m Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Hansley,<br>Which 28-105mm do you have? The f/3.5-4.5, or the f/4-5.6? The 3.5-4.5 is considered very good, the 4-5.6 is considered a junk "kit" type lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike kelly Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 This: http://www.photo.net/photo/2003009, and quite a few of the other pictures in my portfolio have been taken with the 3.5-4.5 USM II. I'm generally happy with it - I find it to be a great all round lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansley_yunez Posted January 9, 2004 Author Share Posted January 9, 2004 thanks for the responses, ill check out those sites! BTW i have the f/3.5-4.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salil_s Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Askin Taner... "Do not bother using this lens at large apertures (as in wide open...), especially at the wide end" Dont you mean the Tele end? Coz at 28mm the DOF is really wide...i am currently testing this lens and after 35mm the lens does seem to be quite soft at wide apertures...havent arrived at a definite conclusion though...coz it could be hand-shake or a bad focus & recompose technique... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 Salil, No, I mean the wide end. MTF curves in various reviews, including Photodo will confirm that - this lens has got its weakest spot at 28mm between f/3.5-4.5. Having used the lens almost exclusively at the 28mm and 105mm ends for one year (I used my 50mm prime whenever I could for sharpness and low light), my argument is not only based on others' review's but also my personal experience. Could mine have been a 'bad' individual lens? No because it displayed the same characteristics as others' (impressingly sharp for a consumer zoom between f8 - f11). I sold my 28-105 3.5-4.5, and bought a 28mm 2.8 (in addition to a 20mm - both used) and I am quite happy with the results. I will not miss the long end of the zoom at all; At f4.5 (and still not at the sweet spot), a 100mm lens is completely useless for my usage of this focal length (background blur, what background blur?). I will miss the versatile, and compact nature of the lens at those times I am on the go - no time for tripods, monopods, etc. For anything else, I can afford to switch between my 28mm and 50mm, and get way better results, in addition to photos which would have been impossible with the zoom. The attached photo might help me make my point: O.K. sharpness and contrast from the lens at 105mm @ f/4.5, but in terms of background blur - well barely...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_simons Posted January 11, 2004 Share Posted January 11, 2004 My personal experience is that it's VERY sharp at f/16. But then again, so are most lenses out there. Like the person above me said, the lens isn't that good for diffusing the background of an image, I mean, it blurs, definetly, but you can just barely make out what's going on in the background which makes it sort of annoying. And shooting wide open at 28mm isn't too good either, I had to shoot wide open for some family portraits because I couldn't get a decent shutter speed, and the photos didn't turn out too good. They were very soft and ugly. But all in all it's an awesome lens and I'll probably have this one forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hansley_yunez Posted January 11, 2004 Author Share Posted January 11, 2004 OT, but one thing im trying to create is a shallow DOF. Would a 50mm f1.8 provide sufficient blurring? I used an online DOF calculator and it seems 50mm f1.8 has deeper DOF than 105mm f4.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salil_s Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Well I guess I have to carry out a some more tests with my lens before reaching a definite conclusion...although I can definitely vouch for the fact that at f/8-11 it is very sharp... I think that this lens is a bit soft when wide open (at 3.5-4.5 the eyes of the subject never look sharp.) On the other hand, could the softness be a result of my lab giving me digital prints? An ISO 400 Kodak neg film looked extremely grainy on my pc moniter when I scanned the negatives. But the grains magically disappeared when I took out prints from the lab. Can the photoshop post processing done by labs (despeckle etc) to smooth out grainy images make the images a bit soft? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now