JimD wrote:
> Ken's perspective has me thinking that the 28-70 is enough
> better than the 28-105 that the 28-70 may be the right step
> to take at this time.
> The comparison on Ian Porteous' site still gives me
> pause though.
Frankly, I found that site to be of dubious value. Scans tell you more about the
scanner than about the film. Using a microscope will tell you a lot about the
grain structure of the film, perhaps less about the performance of the lens.
FWIW, I own both lenses and IMO the images produced by the 28-70 are clearly
better in most respects. Not being an optics engineer I can only guess, but my
guess would be that this is due mainly to the aspherical element in the 28-70.
The 28-105 also shows significant distortion at the periphery, which can be a
problem with some kinds of images (architecture, for example, or having a level
horizon near the top of the frame). If you need a soft lens for portraits (as
someone suggested), you *may* be better off using a high-quality diffusing
filter on a sharp lens than using a less-sharp lens—the result may be more
pleasing.
That said, the “L” is limited in its reach and, as others have noted, relatively
heavy. By itself I find it too limited in range to use as a single
general-purpose lens, requiring at least one additional lens to provide extra
reach. So IMO you really need to figure the cost of two lenses into the
decision. If price is not an issue, the 28-70 is a far better lens than the
28-105 (IMO). While the latter lens will serve its purpose well
(hiking/backpacking, and walking around when photography is not my main intent),
I wouldn't use it for “serious” work. But if cost is an issue and the 28-105 is
good enough for the moment, you would probably find it more useful to add new
focal lengths to your system than to duplicate a lens you have already. Only you
can make that judgment.
Regarding a related thread: I think the 28-70 is a fine travel lens so long as
it’s not the only lens one takes (unless of course one’s style of travel
photography happens to fall within its limited range). Again FWIW, When I took a
four-week trip to the southwestern U.S. some time back my lenses were the
28-70L, 200/2.8L, 300/2.8L, 20-35/3.5~4.5, and 85/1.8, listed in order of
most-used to least-used. With more limited resources, I would have taken the
28-70L, 200L, and 20-35, along with a 1.4x extender for the 200L, and had pretty
good coverage—I didn't find the gap between 70mm and 200mm to be a great
problem. Other folks have different subject interests and different shooting
styles, and this particular combination might not work as well for them; I offer
it as an example of the 28-70 being more than adequate as a travel lens if you
don't mind the weight.
Ken Durling wrote:
> >Anyway, it really depends what you're doing. btw, have you thought of 85
> >f1.8 or 100 f2? They're a great lens and very sharp (if not sharper than
> >28-70L)
>
> Does one of these have much to recommend it over the other?
I've only had the 100/2 a short time, but so far I'd say that there's little to
choose between them in terms of optical performance. IMO the choice would come
down to which length you found more congenial. While 15mm may not amount to
much, it does amount to something, and 85mm was a length I never warmed too—just
not sufficiently different from 50mm (or 70mm) I guess, and it always seemed
either too short or too long for the subject at hand. Although not much longer,
I personally find the 100mm in actual use gives more of a feel of being a real
telephoto, and since I'm one of those folks who can never have enough reach, I
find it more to my liking than the 85mm. Others will differ. I does seem to me,
however, that if shooting concerts from the audience, more reach would be far
preferable to insufficient reach, in which case the 100mm would probably have
the edge. Physically, they are nearly identical, and use the same lens hood.
"M.J.Shupe" wrote:
> One reason I would hold off on the 28-70 is that it is an old lens, and
> you never know when it is going to be replaced, perhaps with an IS
> version. And of course, once it is replaced, that will drive down the
> value on the old one.
This seems to me unlikely. If you look at the IS lenses, with the exception of
the super-teles (where camera/lens movement is always an issue due to the
magnifications involved), they are all lenses with relatively small maximum
apertures. This makes sense, since the practical effect of IS is to allow for
the kinds of low-light shutter speeds normally associated with fast lenses,
without the size or cost of actually having a large maximum aperture. IMO, it
would make little sense to add to the cost and complexity of an already
expensive lens by adding IS when the 28-70L already allows relatively slow
shutter speeds due to its short focal lengths and large maximum aperture. They
could put IS on one of the slow consumer zooms, but then the 28-135 IS pretty
much does that already. As in the FD days, Canon might come out with an “L”
version of the 28-135 IS, but since the switch to EF they seem to have decided
against having both regular and “L” versions of a lens—a significant loss to
budget-constrained amateurs, IMO. But given the nature of IS, it would seem that
a “28-135L IS” high-performance standard zoom would be an attractive option,
certainly more so than a “28-70L IS.”
The 24/2.8 is much older I believe and hasn't been replaced; the same is true of
the 35/2 and, I suspect, several other lenses in the EF lineup. Even the recent
updating of the 28-105 was entirely cosmetic.
> Still, I wouldn't trade my 28-70 for the world. But I probably use my
> 100 macro more--and it makes a great medium speed portrait lens.
Indeed . . . two lenses with very different uses. Exactly why personal shooting
style is an important part of the decision-making process.
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
