> > Hi John & Chip > > One list of MTF-curves is: > http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html > > Here you can see the differences of some lenses you mentioned. > Here you can also see that you can't say the newer lenses are almost the > same as older lenses. For example the 28-80 IV has a grade of > 2.2, where the > original 28-80 had one of 3.2, beside that the build-quality of > the original > is much better. (Metal mount, USM, with FTM, and distance scale). > The comparising of the 70-210 3,5-4,5 to the current 80-200 4,0-5,6 show a > grade that are almost the same 3.1 /3.0, but the build of the > 70-210 is the > same as the original 28-80. > So look at wat the differences exactly are and make the best choice for > yourself, depending on your needs and budget. > > Drikus (a Young Guy) >
Hi John, The wide differences Drikus mentions seeing in optical performance of lenses with various version numbers that have been tested are most likely sample variations in these very low cost lenses. This is why consumer lenses get reviews from the field that are all over the board, half are raves and the rest rants. Personal experience has shown me that there can be noticeable variations in image quality within the consumer level EOS lens line. The characteristics of the low-end consumer lenses are, polycarbonate lens mounts, no distance scale, no USM or USM without FT-M, rotating front lens barrel sections, no special glass types or lens construction elements, simple, almost crude barrel designs with rough material finishes. This variability is also true, but to a much lesser degree with Canon's "middle" level lens lines. Their characteristics include metal lens mounts, distance scales, true "ring" USM with FT-M, molded aspheric lens elements, some exotic lens materials used, generally better lens barrel construction and materials used. There are of course a few exceptions to these characteristics, for example the EF 50 1.4USM comes to mind, it has a Micro-Motor USM AF actuator BUT retains FT-M operation. I personally have owned and/or tested/compared no less than three EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM and two EF 28-135 3.5-5.6IS zooms and there were some variation and performance differences in even these "mid-level" lenses. I also have owned and currently own a few "L" class lenses (the "L" zoom triplets EF 17-35 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF 135 2L, EF 300 4L IS, EF 300 2.8L), and also rent them as need dictates (mostly longer "L" primes as I almost always take the triplets and both EF converters with me), or when I have the need out of town, from various rental houses and there has been almost no variation in the optical performance of these generally outstanding lenses. As I mentioned in my previous post, the lenses the ordinal poster listed are some of the BEST of their generation and are not BAD lenses, just not as GOOD as you can buy from today's consumer lenses given the newer zoom ranges available. The EF 28-70 3.5-4.5 had a metal lens mount and focusing scale and by all accounts (an associate of mine had one and I've seen chromes it produced), was a pretty good lens optically but had the almost unbearably slow focusing ARC motor AF drive so lacked FT-M, it also had the focusing ring and zoom rings reversed from the current consumer lens order. I've handled this lens and the high build quality is obvious, I mounted it on one of my EOS 1n bodies to play with and the AF was sooo S-L-O-W, EF 85 1.2 slow! The EF 35-135 4-5.6USM had a metal lens mount, distance scale and FTM as I recall. The EF 35-135 4-5.6USM is based on the same high quality barrel design family as the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM, EF 100-210 3.5-4.5USM and EF 100-300 4.5-5.6USM zooms. I have handled this lens several times and it has a quality feel to it just like an EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM and EF 70-210 3.5-4.5USM, by most accounts is optically a good, if not great performing lens. The EF 70-210 3.5-4.5USM handles just like a larger version of the EF 35-135 4-5.6USM. I have used this lens on EOS 5QD and EOS 1n bodies and it's a good solid optical performer but definitely not as good optically as the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM on film. I guess that is the trade off for the extra reach of 70-210mm zoom even though it's only a 3:1 zoom ratio vs. the 3.75 ratio of the 28-105mm zoom. As to the old lenses being a better deal? I think that even some of the newer Hyper-Zooms from Sigma and Tamron are getting close in terms of optical performance to Canon's old traditional lower zoom ratio lenses and offer amazing zoom range and ratios. The Sigma 28-200 3.5-5.6 Aspheric Hyper-Zoom is good enough for snapshots but not much more IMO, for many this is more than enough. Canon's own EF 55-200 4.5-5.6USM lens is only a consumer line lens but offers optical performance as good as the "better" older lenses above (with MUCH more zoom range), if a bit short of the current better zooms. It can be had for less than the price of one of these older "better" zooms and performs on par with them even with a 3.6:1 zoom ratio! Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
