Bob Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Interesting. I thought the version II had more
>diaphragm blades than the version I. I don't know if
>I'm wrong or the web site is, but I've learned you
>certainly can't assume the web pages are, even when
>they're created by the manufacturer.
I have a 28-105 I, which I bought used. When I was researching this
lens I read that there are two versions of the I - one with a 5-blade
diaphragm and one with a 7-blade diaphragm. This was before the II
was released, so it appears to have been a silent upgrade on Canon's
part.
Allegedly the 5-blade version has the flower macro icon printed on
the barrel whereas the 7-blade version has the word MACRO printed on
it instead.
I haven't found an older version of the I to verify this, but I can
confirm that the lens that I have - a version I with 7 blades - has
the word MACRO on it. Everything I've read on the subject of this
lens indicates that the II is merely a cosmetic upgrade and does not
involve any change in functionality, like different optics or more
blades on the diaphragm.
As for which is better... well. I've taken photos with my 5-blade
50mm 1.8 I lens and 7-blade 28-105, and I think the appearance of
out-of-focus highlights with 7 blades is preferable. With 5 blades
any distant highlights are bright pentagons and kind of obtrusive;
with 7 they're closer to being round. But the 50mm lens is superior
in every other way to the 28-105 at 50mm, so it really depends on
what you like.
- Neil K.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
