DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Lens snob buys a Canon 'consumer' midrange zoom...
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 33, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/04/2004 05:36:59 PM · #1
OK, I just plunked down a few hundy for a 28-105 3.5-4.5 II USM, despite vowing never to stray from the prime or L zoom territory. I felt the need for a wider zoom for travelling and general use, and while I still am getting a 17-40 at some point I wanted something to cover the normal-to-telephoto range that this has on the 10D. There's only one L zoom in this range really, and it's large, heavy, ultra-expensive and only goes to 70mm.

I've read good things about this lens (28-105 that is) and upon receiving it was surprised at its small size and robust nature. It was a tossup between this one and the 24-85 and decided that this one would be best for me. Haven't fired any shots with it yet.

So, let's see some pics and share some experiences with our 'lesser' gear. Favourite pics? Surprises? Recommendations? Duds? I don't mean for this to be a pissing contest or a my-lens-is-better-than-your-lens discussion. Just share some wicked shots with some 'average' gear.
 03/04/2004 05:40:33 PM · #2
I'll have to dig up some shots with the 28-135 IS - that is one of my favorite walking around lenses. I bet you get some good service out of the 28-105.
 03/04/2004 05:51:21 PM · #3
Once you've tried this lens out, I would be very interested in seeing some shots. I too am thinking of purchasing this lens.

Thanks, Dan

Message edited by author 2004-03-04 17:52:07.
 03/04/2004 05:52:04 PM · #4
Originally posted by daninbc:
Once you've tried this lens out, I would be very interesting in seeing some shots. I too am interested in purchasing this lens.

Thanks, Dan


DITTO!
 03/04/2004 06:14:56 PM · #5
That is the lens that I have.
I shot this entire weddingwith it.
I also just shot this portraitsession.
I have been very happy with this lens. It's worth every penny of it's inexpensive non L price of $220.

Message edited by author 2004-03-04 18:16:08.
 03/04/2004 06:42:52 PM · #6
Wow,Looks great at a good price lets see what you can do with her James!I am envious of your location!
Neil
 03/04/2004 08:09:51 PM · #7
lucky West coaster!!Maybe that should be Jimmy the Dog fish LOL
Ops looks a little over exed well that was the dim7 for ya,I`m not going to fix it now!
Neil

Message edited by author 2004-03-04 20:13:35.
 03/04/2004 08:45:37 PM · #8
Hey Terry, what type of lighting setup did you use for the wedding and portrait session? Your shots are awesome. I recently purchased the 300D and have a flash(Quantaray AF) for it that doesn't work unless I bounce it or use it on 1/16 power, I had a previous flash for my Nikon that I could use with my Canon if I purchased a new module for it and, of course, it doesn't work right. I do have a flash bracket for it.
 03/04/2004 08:51:31 PM · #9
Originally posted by Paige:
Hey Terry, what type of lighting setup did you use for the wedding and portrait session? Your shots are awesome. I recently purchased the 300D and have a flash(Quantaray AF) for it that doesn't work unless I bounce it or use it on 1/16 power, I had a previous flash for my Nikon that I could use with my Canon if I purchased a new module for it and, of course, it doesn't work right. I do have a flash bracket for it.

thanks
I used the 420 ex on all the shots. I bounced it and had a diffuser on it. Same for the portraits. Used the 420 with diffuser but not bounced.
 03/04/2004 09:13:32 PM · #10
Was the flash on camera or off?
 03/04/2004 09:16:15 PM · #11
oh yeah, do you use Pbase to show your clients your shots and get them printed elsewhere? What do you think of Pbase for these purposes and where do you print them?
 03/04/2004 09:17:29 PM · #12
Originally posted by Paige:
Was the flash on camera or off?


On camera. I didnt have a bracket at the time of the wedding. It caused some shadows on the vertical pics. I strongly recommend a bracket for those doing portraits or weddings.
I used manual or program mode mostly.
Yes, I use pbase to direct my clients there to view the pics. I will be printing them locally, until I do more research on the right printers.
I don't have the time to them send out right now.

Message edited by author 2004-03-04 21:19:13.
 03/04/2004 11:03:19 PM · #13
Although I have "L disease" now big-time since buying the 70-200 2.8 L IS, my travel lens is the Canon 28-200 3.5-5.6 USM. This lens is not very well rated, however I have taken some very pleasing shots with it.
Here are a couple of recent ones:

03/05/2004 12:55:49 AM · #14


I like em all, just can't print them very big. All taken with the 24-85
 03/05/2004 01:51:32 AM · #15
Terry, Fritz, and Gordon.... those are some awesome pictures!

Message edited by author 2004-03-05 01:51:46.
 03/05/2004 10:35:17 AM · #16
....and my F717 just sold on eBay for more than the reserve price...so 17-40 here i come!
 03/05/2004 10:42:09 AM · #17
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
....and my F717 just sold on eBay for more than the reserve price...so 17-40 here i come!


how much? I wanna sell mine there too.
03/05/2004 10:55:31 AM · #18
Amazing pictures!!!!
Neil
 03/09/2004 10:19:22 AM · #19
I sold my F717, 2 batteries, 256mb pro, leather case and misc cables etc that came with it for $950 CDN...so, around $650-700 US. I think I got a fair price. I had to list it twice though.

Originally posted by TerryGee:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
....and my F717 just sold on eBay for more than the reserve price...so 17-40 here i come!


how much? I wanna sell mine there too.
03/09/2004 10:24:08 AM · #20
Two shots with my new 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. I have to say that I'm very happy with the performance of this lens. From an image quality standopint it's much better than I expected. Would of course like a 2.8 but at that price it's not gonna happen. For anyone looking for a wakaround I'd recommend it wholeheartedly, and would say that if the 28-135 IS is similar optically, that would be a good choice if you have the money.



Message edited by author 2004-03-09 10:31:55.
 03/09/2004 10:37:04 AM · #21
I just bought a 17-40 from BHPhoto. The interesting thing to me is that they describe it as a good walk around/ general purpose lens when put on a digicam. It is basically a 28-64mm equivalent on my D60.

This is interesting because I've been happily using a 24-85 on my D60 as a travel/ walk about lens, which is a 38-135 equivalent.

So even this real wide (17mm) WA lens is just starting to scratch what 35mm shooters would call a standard zoom at the low end. It is just slightly wide angle, about the same as most prosumer digicams or SLR cameras.

A bigger sensor would be great! I'll have fun with it on my frebel for a while though as well.
03/09/2004 10:47:49 AM · #22
Well the term walkaround really just refers to it being more versatile. I think it's what you're used to...my F717 was 35mm on the wide end so there's not that much difference with the 44m FOV on the 28-105 really. The geographical nature of the coast where I live and like to walk and take casual shots for giggles lends itself to telephoto rather than wide angle most of the time, so I don't frequently miss a wide end. I can use my 70-200 for landscapes quite nicely. That said, I would like to cover all the bases and the 17-40 will be one that I will soon purchase. I'd like to see one through a full-frame viewfinder! Must be wild. The other one I'd consider would be the Sigma 12-24 for wide angle...I like the idea of not overlapping my current gear, though I'd like to stay with Canon. I wouldn't be too surprised to see something wider frm Canon in the next year or so, if they stay with the 1.6x.

Originally posted by Gordon:
I just bought a 17-40 from BHPhoto. The interesting thing to me is that they describe it as a good walk around/ general purpose lens when put on a digicam. It is basically a 28-64mm equivalent on my D60.

This is interesting because I've been happily using a 24-85 on my D60 as a travel/ walk about lens, which is a 38-135 equivalent.

So even this real wide (17mm) WA lens is just starting to scratch what 35mm shooters would call a standard zoom at the low end. It is just slightly wide angle, about the same as most prosumer digicams or SLR cameras.

A bigger sensor would be great! I'll have fun with it on my frebel for a while though as well.
03/09/2004 10:48:30 AM · #23
Keep in mind that I have only had it for a few days, but the 28-135 IS seems like a very good lens for the $$. I was skeptical about the IS, but I can tell it works, especially at the long end. My only concern is that f4 may not give shallow enough DOF in some cases.
 03/09/2004 10:53:40 AM · #24
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Well the term walkaround really just refers to it being more versatile. I think it's what you're used to...my F717 was 35mm on the wide end so there's not that much difference with the 44m FOV on the 28-105 really. The geographical nature of the coast where I live and like to walk and take casual shots for giggles lends itself to telephoto rather than wide angle most of the time, so I don't frequently miss a wide end. I can use my 70-200 for landscapes quite nicely. That said, I would like to cover all the bases and the 17-40 will be one that I will soon purchase. I'd like to see one through a full-frame viewfinder! Must be wild. The other one I'd consider would be the Sigma 12-24 for wide angle...I like the idea of not overlapping my current gear, though I'd like to stay with Canon. I wouldn't be too surprised to see something wider frm Canon in the next year or so, if they stay with the 1.6x.


I've been happy with the 24-85mm (38-135) as well. I think I've never really experienced shooting with a true wide angle is all I'm saying. My G2 didn't have much in the wide angle sense, just the same as the D60 with 24mm attached didn't have much in the way of wide wide angle. It will be interesting to play around with the 17-40 on a film camera.

I didn't get anything wider (12mm or so) because I think I'll eventually move up to either a full or 1.3x frame sensor so didn't want something too extreme.
 03/09/2004 11:05:48 AM · #25
Yeah, having that 1D Mk II out there and knowing that all my lenses will fit on it or a predecessor, and knowing that it will likely come down to the $1500-2000 level when the market fully matures, leaves me with a warm fuzzy feeling inside. I think the 1.3x would be a great size.

Originally posted by Gordon:
I've been happy with the 24-85mm (38-135) as well. I think I've never really experienced shooting with a true wide angle is all I'm saying. My G2 didn't have much in the wide angle sense, just the same as the D60 with 24mm attached didn't have much in the way of wide wide angle. It will be interesting to play around with the 17-40 on a film camera.

I didn't get anything wider (12mm or so) because I think I'll eventually move up to either a full or 1.3x frame sensor so didn't want something too extreme.


Message edited by author 2004-03-09 11:06:27.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:30:33 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:30:33 PM EDT.