aww cmon guys ;(

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Deathwalker, Oct 30, 2003.

  1. Deathwalker

    Deathwalker Guest

    only two responses for my pleas for advice.

    from what i've read L are the best canon lenses.

    tamron pro

    and tokina sp are L equivalent. So although not up to canons best they
    would be better than canons standard stuff?

    Not to mention the wider apertures alone. To acheive that the glass has to
    be better doesn't it? To hide imperfections of cheap glass you limit the
    maximum aperture. usually such lenses require f8 or f11 to get their best.

    Canon 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM £149

    Tokina 28-70mm F2.6-2.8 Pro £225

    Tamron 28-105mm F2.8 SP £399
    Deathwalker, Oct 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Deathwalker

    Matt Clara Guest

    Well, I stayed out of it because I don't know, but I've heard good things
    about the Tokina.
    Matt Clara, Oct 30, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Deathwalker

    Leicaddict Guest

    I didn't comment, and for one reason, I'd rather have one great lens than
    lots of so-so lenses. When I first started, years ago, I had a Nikkormat
    with a 50mm lens, until it got stolen. Then a used Canon 7 with a 35mm/f1.8,
    until I traded it in on a Leica CL with 40mm and 90mm lenses. Finally about
    fifteen years ago, I got a Nikon AF with some zooms. Except for a very few
    instances ($$$$$$), zooms suck. I mean big time. So I spent money on zooms,
    until it finally dawned on me, zooms suck, and for the money I was spending
    on zooms, I could have ONE great lens. And the cheaper zooms are, the worst
    they are. So unless you want to spend $$$$ for a zoom, forget about it. If
    you're going to get serious about photography, you'll want serious glass,
    and in your range, that means some of the outstanding and bargin, Canon
    primes. Otherwise, unless you notice a difference, unless you can see it,
    stick with what you have. You'll probably learn more by buying a good loupe
    and light source, and examining your negs and slides thouroughly.
    Leicaddict, Oct 30, 2003
  4. Deathwalker

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: aww cmon guys ;(
    Tamron's are good lenses. The older 70-150/3.5 zoom I have and the
    24-70/3.3-5.5 I sold were of excellent optical quality though more than
    slightly prone to flare. I also owned (in the '80's) a MF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6? (I
    forget the exact aperture) which was also optically excellent in sharpness and
    had nice color saturation. Though I wouldn't put them at Canon L level (which
    is just a fraction of a notch away from Zeiss lense level sharpness/contrast),
    I would put them somewhere in the Nikon range in terms of sharpness, color
    saturation and overall look (w/ Nikon lenses perhaps having slightly better
    and/or more saturated color), but I feel the older Tamron 90/2.5 was a bit
    closer to the Leica lenses in sharpness that the Nikon (the current 90mm/2.8 AF
    I believe also has this rep). Canon lenses have good sharpness (especially the
    primes and L zooms/primes) but I have never been a fan of their "look" (color
    rendition/saturation) especially on slides. The L glass is in another class in
    terms of contrast/color saturation/etc. Tamrons are very good to excellent, I
    would peg the L glass as excellent-> superb. You get what you pay for. Though I
    would be happy with either's image quality if I was making a great image ;-).

    If you don't need the 105 end in the zoom I'd probably go w/ the Tokina for
    both build and optical quality (I believe its based on the design for the now
    discontinued Angeneiux 28-70 f/2.6-2.8?which was reputed to have an exceelent
    optical reputation if memory serves) and its (near) constant f/2.8 aperture
    which comes in handy for low light and a brighter viewfinder for
    composing/manually focusing. The Canon (version one anyway) I believe has USM
    but I was not impressed by a friend's version of this lens at the long end, it
    seemed a bit too soft to me though at the short end it was tack sharp. I
    believe the Tamron 28-105/2.8 may have bad bokeh, if not in the finder then on
    the film itself and I don't believe that its as sharp as their 35-105/2.8. I
    have not owned any of these lenses and have seen results from only the Canon.
    But that's my take on it.

    For more info/opinions try:
    photodo (I forget their URL)
    and something like photozone (or - somebody else must have the URL

    If you can rent or try out the lens from a store or a friend that would give
    you an even better idea.

    P.S. - Tamron has a new compact XR? 28-70/2.8 which you might want to look into
    - I believe Popular Photography may have done a lens test on this lens
    recently. Don't know if it had light-falloff problems/vignetting or not. Get
    the magazine at a library or a news-stand and check out the info for yourself.

    Hope this helps.


    Lewis Lang, Oct 30, 2003
  5. Only from a marketing point of view.
    Never owned it. Canon owner I know has a low opinion of it (probably 'cos it
    feels like a kit zoom).
    Owned it, liked it a lot. Try and find a Pro II, and try to spend less- the
    Pro II has a bayonet hood, and I picked a
    mint-barring-strong-cigar-smelling-boxed Pro I up for £150 from Jessops (of
    all places).
    Owned the 35-105 predecessor, and wasn't overly impressed by it's softness
    sub-5.6 and push-pull mechanism. By all accounts the 28-105 is inferior (and

    (BTW I see all your quoted prices are from Ffordes... give a gander, they have a 20% off sale on at the moment
    and their phones should work again. They have the rather well thought of
    28-135 IS Canon, too)
    Martin Francis, Oct 30, 2003
  6. Deathwalker

    Deathwalker Guest

    message > >

    Canon 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 USM £149
    I think its a recommended on the chapel noir site tony recommends.

    I've applied as a trainee sales advisor there. Still waiting.
    Deathwalker, Oct 31, 2003
  7. Deathwalker

    Deathwalker Guest

    So tokina is doing better than canon and tamron at the moment. i've been
    offfered £75 trade in for my canon mk III usm 28-80 3.5/5.6 and 70-210 sigma
    zoom 3.5/5.6 combined. 100 if i use there commission sales area.

    I will also look at mifuds. jessops won't quote prices on their equipment
    on the net.
    Deathwalker, Oct 31, 2003
  8. Deathwalker

    Dallas Guest

    Leicaddict said:
    Very good advice.

    My mission in photography right now is to dispose of all my zoom lenses
    and get stuff that really makes you say "ooh!".

    I only have one left, the 28-135mm IS, but I am at a loss on what to get
    to replace it. I already have fast 20mm and 85mm primes. I suppose a 50mm
    f/1.4 would be in order.
    Dallas, Nov 2, 2003
  9. Deathwalker

    Deathwalker Guest

    makes you say "ooh!".
    a 105 or 135 for portraits.
    Deathwalker, Nov 2, 2003
  10. It depends, of course, on your needs, but:

    From personal experience - TS-E 24mm f/3.5L, 35mm f/1.4L (both awesome,
    in different ways).

    By reputation, the 135mm f/2L is also superb.

    The one I really lust after is the 180mm f/3.5L macro.

    (I have ignored the long lenses, as being rather specialised).

    The 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 are very good, though I haven't had them long, and
    I don't use them as much as the first two.
    David Littlewood, Nov 5, 2003
  11. Deathwalker

    NJH Guest

    There's a disturbance in the Force, Luke! Somewhere in the galaxy, someone
    is misusing the term "prime lens" again!
    NJH, Dec 2, 2003
  12. Deathwalker

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: aww cmon guys ;(

    Lewis Lang, Dec 2, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.