aljaz_.

In contrast to suggested above, I support the idea of giving third-party lenses a try, especially if their price is good and their performance often praised on respectable sites. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is one such lens. I have one and it is lovely, in addition to being half the weight, smaller and very well priced compared to the Canon IS equivalent. It is a perfect complement to my 70-200/4 and better than my trusty 28-105/3.5-4.5, in case you'd appreciate a comparison to Canon lenses. I cannot comment on its performance vs. the Canon 18-55/2.8 IS, but it is nice compared to my good Canon primes. It has no IS, no USM, the focusing is probably slightly better at Canon's, and zoom rotates wrong-wise. But it produces great color, bokeh, and pics in general, which my larger Canon lenses don't as I don't feel to lug their weight/size wherever I go.

I agree with Yakim. The 28-105/f3.5-4.5 was my first ever EOS lens and I made some of my nices pics with it. I now own primes and L lenses but frequently resort to the 28-105 for its good quality, versatility and useful weight and size. You may eventually want to add a prime lens (e.g. the 50mm mentioned above) for indoor and evening use, but till then there will be plenty to do with just the one zoom. I encourage.

Halo? Did it reach anyone that this lens is a f2.8 AND has IS? I'm suspecting a stellar performer and a weight monster. Although, just perhaps, for once the smaller frame may beneficially lead to a reduced weight of the lens.

I hoped for years that the digicam race would focus on aspects like lens quality and low light performance, but it always seemed to revolve around the megapixel count. Fortunately, handling extremely large pictures files isn't convenient for the casual user thus the mp race had to slow down.

 

The race, of course, continues but may lead in a few years time to a pocket size digicam with a large and sensitive sensor and a fast, high quality lens.

This has been posted in the Leica forum, but I thought it may interest

the general EOS audience, given the indicative comments by Chuck Westfall.

 

<p>

<a

href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/02/technology/circuits/02pogue.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin">Click

here.</a></p>

You say yourself that "the 70-200L is inherently a better lens, by all accounts". You also say it's cheaper. Unless you need the 201mm-300mm range, you must have answered your own question, no? Mind, of course, that we know little yet about the optical performance of the new 70-300 lens.

 

On sharpness and making up for the lack of IS. The 70-200 lens will be sharper than 70-300 with IS if your shutter-open times are short enough. IS on the 70-300 otherwise gains 1 (maybe 2 with the new version) stop against the 70-200 at 200mm focal length, but won't make the photos sharper than correctly shot ones of 70-200.

Buildingds and arhitecture, hmm..

 

For these objects a wide-angle lens, such as a 24mm one, is traditionally advised. For example, I think the 28mm/f2.8 is a very good lens and costs less than any other wide-angle lens. The 24mm/f2.8 is a tad more expensive but equally good.

 

If some money is left you could add the (inexpensive) 50mm/f1.8 or (fairly priced) 85mm/f1.8 for details and object isolation.

50/f1.4 and 85/f1.8 are middle of the range lenses?

 

Is then 50/f1.8 the low range and 28-105/f3.5-4.5 the very-low range? Where is 28-70/f4-5.6, uncharted? And what is the high range - 200/f1.8 on its own?

I bought the 70-200/f4L, the same model you are asking about, refurbished from Adorama some two years ago. It looked (and still does) like new, came with a "Canon refurbished" sticker, and works as if it never left the box. For a while I was looking into the lens until I found a shiny spot. No one else could see it and I couldn't get a second-party oppinion on whether the spot would affect the performance. I now think all lenses have shiny spots inside if you look long enough (impossible to avoid when producing fluorite/UD/etc. elements?). My amateur eyes checking the velvia's find its performance excellent, on par with my 50/f1.4, and I would not shy away from buying another "refurbished" lens at an 80$ saving.

 

That said, I was a bit dissapointed with Adorama. They forgot to include the lens shade and I had to go back to pick it up.

 

I say you go for it. You will get a return option and 3 months warranty. Let me (us) know if you were unhappy with the lens.

Why do you ask after you've already bought the kit and why did you buy two lenses that cover very similar ranges? Return the kit lens.

Notice that the 28-135IS is quite larger and heavier than the 28-105, and I believe so is the Tamron, which made me stay with the 28-105 (but didn't stop others from changing). Anyway, the Tamron lens in question has an excellent reputation for a 400$ lens and would be my choice if I was in the market for a mid-range zoom. Check few posts below. No compatibility issues have been reported so far. Its range of 28-75 is quite short, though, and this is its drawback. Whether 28-135 is worth the additional 90$ for you we can't know. It may be, in view of the original price difference.

 

If you get no answer re. A80 try posting the question again with another subject line.

It's a testimony to the quality of 28-135mm/3.5-5.6IS that these questions died out long ago. I remember them being asked once or twice a week, but recently everyone seems to have bought the IS.

 

Otherwise, this is from the archives:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008ZBf

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007VMC

etc...

 

 

Wouldn't you consider the tamron 28-75/2.8?

Mine worked perfectly for two years and then it fell to the floor one early morning. It worked well again at a cost of 100$. Then I hit it again and now it works but not as smoothly as before. I should do something about my hit frequency. A v.nice lens though.

Nice. If they seriously believe to increase sales they'll either be dropping those silly prices or introduce something that 1.8m of slr users will be willing to buy for such monies. Full frame sensor with variable latitude and velvia & npc emulation modes anyone?

Umm, where do you live? I never charge people for watching my slide projections. Heck, I'd pay for someone to come over and watch. I'm sure you can find someone to show you her/his slides for free.

Nice pics, nevertheless.

My intuition tells me Yakim is about to say something decisive.

Of course, this whole discussion is terribly relevant because so often does a shot in a city require a super tele. In fact, those guys over at the Leica have no clue what they are missing, using nothing beyond the 90mm when on streets.

Keep on shooting film. Next to being overpriced, Canon 1Ds is oversized and overweight. Leicas are overpriced only. There's an interview with a Canon representative on the topic, translated here:

 

http://hobday.net/canon/

 

 

"Full frame digital for people" discussion on the Canon forum:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009gD7

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009ere

Canon 1Ds or 1Ds Mk II, each 8000$. Where's Jay's comment on overpriced Leica's?

Yeee! This forum was a total baghdad while you were gone. Now tell us quick what goodies were you to review in the meantime. A 3D in the union jack colours?

I read economics books and jounals! Now trying to print there. Some old stuff in genetics made it to Science, though.

The new 70-300 IS DO aside, that is. It has an improved IS, sharpness and reduced size. It has also an especially improved price tag.

Did anybody else notice that our righteous and benevolent moderator

hasn't been present at this forum for over two weeks? Who's taking

care of rumor deletion while they are most abound? I say we start a

rumor thread on what he's busy with. Say, reviewing many unheard-of

pieces of newest Canon stuff, such as the rumored 16-55 f4 L and the

3D... Could he be lost traveling (sailing?) to that silly photokina?

Eating Off your Salary.