Evrim, I agree with you that overall the 50 1.4 is sharper than the 28-80 USM I and that you can see it in your pictures, I discribed this as 'crisp'. But I must disagree with you that the 28-80 USM 3,5-5,6 Version I is bad. It is as good as the 28-105 3,5-4,5 USM. The build is very good (IMO even better then the 28-105, and I have both) and it has also USM with FTM and distance-scale. This version can NOT be compared to the later versions. I know not many people are aware of this lens when they think of a 28-80 lens, and that means you can get one real cheap although they are not much offered.
Drikus Icoz, Evrim wrote: > So 28-80 performs at f8 the same as a 50mm at f2.8. I think that is not very > impressive. The point is, there is a noticable difference between these two > lenses, imho. When I tried my 85mm 1.8 vs 28-135, I was able tosee how much > sharper the 85mm was from a 4x6, which is amazing. > > The 28-80 sharpness wise looks like similar to 28-105, which is my favourite > all around lens. But you are talking of the earlier version. The one is > really bad... > > > 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. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
