Tom P. When you actually compare the weigthed MTF against eachother you see that for the 28-80 at 50mm this is 0,71 @ f/4.5 and 0,77@ f/8.0 and for the 50 1.8 0,67 @ 1.8 -- 0,77 @ f/2.8 -- 0,85 @ f/8. So it also depends on the aperture you use. I myself have the 50/1.4 (wich has almost the same MTF-figures) and IMHO this lens has some more 'crisp' to its pictures, but the 28-80 is still my favorite all-around lens.
Drikus > I've heard that the earlier 28-80 lenses were better, and Photodo seems to > bear this out, ranking them at 3.2 versus 2.2 for the newer offerings. But > the 50 1.8 is rated at 4.2, way ahead of either. In fact, no Canon AF zoom > that has been rated by them scored higher, including the 70-200 2.8L > (non-IS) at 4.1, the cult favorite 28-105 (3.3) or the "incredible" 28-70 > 2.8L (3.9). It was tied by the 80-200 2.8L, though. > > Tom P. > > > > > > > I agree with your email but not this poiunt. The 50mm is a very sharp > lens > > > and nice contrast. THe 28-80 is a not a good lens, very soft. THere is a > > lot > > > of difference between these two lenses. > > > > > > It totaly depends on wich version of the 28-80 you compare it to. The > first > > 28-80 is quit good, so the difference is not so big in that case. > > > > Drikus > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
