Thanks Joe. I think I'll go for the faster lens. Power zoom isn't important to me. I'm a zoom neophyte. I've been shooting with manual focus primes for thirty years and will continue in that vein, but I thought I ought to have an autofocus zoom for snapshots and lazy day walkarounds. Paul
Joe Wilensky wrote: > Hi, Paul, > > First, there are three versions of this lens -- the IF (internal > focus) non powerzoom 28-105 (introduced in 1999) that was reportedly > a rebadged Tamron seems to have the worst reputation of the three and > the largest filter size (62mm). > > I don't think the powerzoom version of the 28-105 is in production > any more. B&H's high price ($357?) for a "new" one may reflect old > limited stock and the lens's good reputation. But used, the powerzoom > version goes for $125-$160, depending on condition. > > The newest faster f/3.2-4.5 version seems to perform very well and is > as compact as the 28-70 FA zoom when at its shortest length but is a > bit flimsy, especially when extended -- like the FA 24-90. > > The power zoom model has a very good reputation, and, while it is > slow and heavy, is better built and has the power zoom features. It > was probably more expensive when new than any of these lenses > partially because of the power zoom functions and also because > 28-105mm zooms were a bit less common (or at least a bit more > "high-end consumer" level) when this lens was introduced with the > PZ-1 in 1991. > > Joe > > >I've noticed that the slower of these two lenses sells for almost twice > >as much new as does the faster 3.2-4.5 lens. Yet the faster lens seems > >more expensive on the used market. Is the slow lens optically superior > >to the faster lens? Is either of them to be avoided. > >Thanks, > >Paul
