Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

350D lens - my question answered.

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:44:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A few days ago I asked what lens I might buy for my 350D to improve on the
kit lens.

After a few hours of research and lots of reading at
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L... I
bought the 28 to 105mm f3.5/4.5 USM II. For less than a third of the price
of the body I have an excellent lens. I would suggest that unless you need
the 18mm wide kit lens you save some cash and buy the body only; then stick
the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on the body. I did consider the IS 28/135 but the
350D has such a good ISO range (and I have a metal mount 75/300 from the
past) I didn't need to spend the extra money.

The lens is quiet and fast to focus. Resolution at f4 to f5.6 is very much
better than the kit lens at f8, I needed to use f10 on the kit lens to get
close to the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on f4. It's heavier - but that's because
it's full of glass and has more metal bits.

I paid UKP189 at Jessops, who price matched very quickly from their ticket
price of 195. They also dropped their G6 from 449 to 399 at the drop of a
hat (I was picking one up for a friend). Fair play to them, they have stuff
in stock and decent staff.

John
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 12:44:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:424b01c8_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>A few days ago I asked what lens I might buy for my 350D to improve on the
> kit lens.
>
> After a few hours of research and lots of reading at
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L... I
> bought the 28 to 105mm f3.5/4.5 USM II. For less than a third of the price
> of the body I have an excellent lens. I would suggest that unless you need
> the 18mm wide kit lens you save some cash and buy the body only; then
> stick
> the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on the body. I did consider the IS 28/135 but
> the
> 350D has such a good ISO range (and I have a metal mount 75/300 from the
> past) I didn't need to spend the extra money.
>
> The lens is quiet and fast to focus. Resolution at f4 to f5.6 is very much
> better than the kit lens at f8, I needed to use f10 on the kit lens to get
> close to the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on f4. It's heavier - but that's
> because
> it's full of glass and has more metal bits.
>
> I paid UKP189 at Jessops, who price matched very quickly from their ticket
> price of 195. They also dropped their G6 from 449 to 399 at the drop of a
> hat (I was picking one up for a friend). Fair play to them, they have
> stuff
> in stock and decent staff.
>
> John
>
>
We sold my wife's 28-105 f3.5-4.5 because we found it unacceptably soft on
her 20D, which is why I didn't recommend it...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
March 31, 2005 1:24:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This is the joy of the net.....you get the definitive answer, and it's
immediately blown away
DonB
Related resources
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 3:20:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I also use the 28-105 usm on my rebel and love it. WAY sharper then the
18-55...
--
www.harryphotos.com




"eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:424b01c8_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> A few days ago I asked what lens I might buy for my 350D to improve on the
> kit lens.
>
> After a few hours of research and lots of reading at
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L... I
> bought the 28 to 105mm f3.5/4.5 USM II. For less than a third of the price
> of the body I have an excellent lens. I would suggest that unless you need
> the 18mm wide kit lens you save some cash and buy the body only; then
stick
> the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on the body. I did consider the IS 28/135 but
the
> 350D has such a good ISO range (and I have a metal mount 75/300 from the
> past) I didn't need to spend the extra money.
>
> The lens is quiet and fast to focus. Resolution at f4 to f5.6 is very much
> better than the kit lens at f8, I needed to use f10 on the kit lens to get
> close to the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on f4. It's heavier - but that's
because
> it's full of glass and has more metal bits.
>
> I paid UKP189 at Jessops, who price matched very quickly from their ticket
> price of 195. They also dropped their G6 from 449 to 399 at the drop of a
> hat (I was picking one up for a friend). Fair play to them, they have
stuff
> in stock and decent staff.
>
> John
>
>
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:20:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:o JH2e.2532$k57.40@fed1read07...
> "eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:424b01c8_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> >A few days ago I asked what lens I might buy for my 350D to improve on
the
> > kit lens.
> >
> > After a few hours of research and lots of reading at
> > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...
I
> > bought the 28 to 105mm f3.5/4.5 USM II. For less than a third of the
price
> > of the body I have an excellent lens. I would suggest that unless you
need
> > the 18mm wide kit lens you save some cash and buy the body only; then
> > stick
> > the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on the body. I did consider the IS 28/135 but
> > the
> > 350D has such a good ISO range (and I have a metal mount 75/300 from the
> > past) I didn't need to spend the extra money.
> >
> > The lens is quiet and fast to focus. Resolution at f4 to f5.6 is very
much
> > better than the kit lens at f8, I needed to use f10 on the kit lens to
get
> > close to the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on f4. It's heavier - but that's
> > because
> > it's full of glass and has more metal bits.
> >
> > I paid UKP189 at Jessops, who price matched very quickly from their
ticket
> > price of 195. They also dropped their G6 from 449 to 399 at the drop of
a
> > hat (I was picking one up for a friend). Fair play to them, they have
> > stuff
> > in stock and decent staff.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> We sold my wife's 28-105 f3.5-4.5 because we found it unacceptably soft on
> her 20D, which is why I didn't recommend it...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
was it a usm?
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 6:20:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:78J2e.858440$8l.394122@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:o JH2e.2532$k57.40@fed1read07...
>> "eatmorepies" <jan9mung9mun9day@lineone.net> wrote in message
>> news:424b01c8_3@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>> >A few days ago I asked what lens I might buy for my 350D to improve on
> the
>> > kit lens.
>> >
>> > After a few hours of research and lots of reading at
>> > http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Zoom-L...
> I
>> > bought the 28 to 105mm f3.5/4.5 USM II. For less than a third of the
> price
>> > of the body I have an excellent lens. I would suggest that unless you
> need
>> > the 18mm wide kit lens you save some cash and buy the body only; then
>> > stick
>> > the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on the body. I did consider the IS 28/135 but
>> > the
>> > 350D has such a good ISO range (and I have a metal mount 75/300 from
>> > the
>> > past) I didn't need to spend the extra money.
>> >
>> > The lens is quiet and fast to focus. Resolution at f4 to f5.6 is very
> much
>> > better than the kit lens at f8, I needed to use f10 on the kit lens to
> get
>> > close to the 28/105 f3.5.4.5 USMII on f4. It's heavier - but that's
>> > because
>> > it's full of glass and has more metal bits.
>> >
>> > I paid UKP189 at Jessops, who price matched very quickly from their
> ticket
>> > price of 195. They also dropped their G6 from 449 to 399 at the drop of
> a
>> > hat (I was picking one up for a friend). Fair play to them, they have
>> > stuff
>> > in stock and decent staff.
>> >
>> > John
>> >
>> >
>> We sold my wife's 28-105 f3.5-4.5 because we found it unacceptably soft
>> on
>> her 20D, which is why I didn't recommend it...
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>>
> was it a usm?
>
>
Yep, 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II, it wasn't the f4.5-5.6 version, (which is
also USM, but micromotor, not ring as in the older, faster, more expensive
lens) it was the same version you have. Of course, that may just have been
her way of wheedling me into buying her a 28-135 IS like I have... <G>
Seriously, though, that lens served her well on her film cameras and on her
10D, but the 8mp sensor seems to have highlighted its shortcomings.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
March 31, 2005 7:58:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Congrats on your purchase, John!

By the way, there are a few versions out there.

The el-cheapo 28-105s are f/4-5.6's that use micro motors and aren't
worth the money.

The real good stuff which they (unfortunately) don't make anymore are
the f/3.5-4.5's...

Those babies have ring USM and full time manual with distance scales
and everything. I had one but sold it... now I want it back! :D 

Jules
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net.
!