Canon EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 vs 28-135 lens test.

Discussion in 'Canon' started by AnOvercomer02, Dec 18, 2003.

  1. AnOvercomer02, Dec 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Stephen M. Dunn, Dec 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. AnOvercomer02

    ROBMURR Guest

    I do have some questions about the tests...
    Was the tripod on carpet or a hard surface?
    Exactly how was the camera aligned to the newspaper?
    Vertically, Horizontally and how was it centered?
    Was the camera manually focused or autofocused?
    At what distance was the tripod from the newspaper?
    You tested different focal lengths and aperatures
    but at what distance?
    These lenses are not known for great resolution at
    closer distances...
    I dont own either of these lenses any more so I
    cant test them myself but I have tested some lenses
    this way and getting the camera dead square to the
    target is critical...I used slide film and a low power
    microscope to evaluate the results way before digital
    was around..
    Thanks.
     
    ROBMURR, Dec 18, 2003
    #3
  4. Hey Rob,
    I did not do this test, I foud it on the internet. Sorry, I guess I
    should have mention that. I just ordered the 28-105 from B&H and am
    interested in how it will compare againts my 50 f1.8 and 55-200. I was
    thinking about getting the EF 28 f2.8 but decided to get the zoom, which
    I may regret, but I've read a lot of reports that the 28-105 f3.5 does
    pretty good at 28 stopped down. The 28 f2.8 is cheap enough that I may
    get it too at a later date.

    Cody Houston®
    ==================================


    Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 2:02pm (CST+6)
    From: (ROBMURR)

    I do have some questions about the tests... Was the tripod on carpet or
    a hard surface? Exactly how was the camera aligned to the newspaper?
    Vertically, Horizontally and how was it centered? Was the camera
    manually focused or autofocused? At what distance was the tripod from
    the newspaper? You tested different focal lengths and aperatures but at
    what distance?
    These lenses are not known for great resolution at closer distances...
    I dont own either of these lenses any more so I cant test them myself
    but I have tested some lenses this way and getting the camera dead
    square to the target is critical...I used slide film and a low power
    microscope to evaluate the results way before digital was around..
    Thanks.

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer02, Dec 18, 2003
    #4
  5. AnOvercomer02

    Alan Browne Guest

    That was the tag line to Penthouse magazine's "Caligula". Pretty good
    flick!
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 18, 2003
    #5
  6. AnOvercomer02

    ROBMURR Guest

    Oops, sorry, hope the originator of the
    test reads my comments. The 28-105
    is a fine lens dont worry about that.
    I will probably fall between the 50
    and the 55-200 lens in sharpness...
    that is if you do your part...
     
    ROBMURR, Dec 18, 2003
    #6
  7. That's what I was thinking. My EF 55-200 USM has the micro USM like the
    EF 75-300 USM which is pretty quiet but not as fast as ring USM. I paid
    about $100 for that lens, and now Canon has a new version that cost
    about $200 and I think the only significant difference is that the
    latter lens was modified for digital SLRs. I read a webpage that said it
    was targeted for those who bought the EOS 300D. I guess the camera
    manufacturers are going to make the impationt digital users who want
    instant gratification PAY.

    http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOvercomer02/PhotographyLinks
     
    AnOvercomer02, Dec 20, 2003
    #7
  8. Yes Sir Mr. Dunn, I know, I have had that test in my files for almost a
    year now and apreciate your efforts. I know this is the 35mm NG, but the
    lenses tested fit Canon EOS cameras. I do not own a digital camera, I
    dont even own a computer or scanner and so I don't have much interest in
    digital at this time, although the way digital is excelling, I probably
    will be interested in a digital camera in the near future, even if I
    don't have a computer or scanner. Right now though, if I did have a
    computer and had the money to spare for a Canon EOS 300D, I would not
    get it, but rather would get an Elan 7 or 7E and a Lens or two or three.
    That is if I had at least 10% left to help feed starving children in
    Africa.

    Cody Houston®


     Mat 10:41  He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet
    shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man
    in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
      
     Mat 10:42  And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these
    little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I
    say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
    ==================================
      
    Group: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2003, 3:56am (CST+6)
    From: (Stephen M. Dunn)

          I did a similar test a few years ago, but using a film
    camera (this is, after all, the 35mm newsgroup :).
    http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html
     
    AnOvercomer02, Dec 20, 2003
    #8
    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.