Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 1, 2002, 5:01 AM   #11
Jim C.'s Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 44

Originally posted by Chris™
Hi @ll!

I bet, I'm not the only one who likes this lens.

Today I made further testing on my D30 with macro and I found out, that the minimum distance is shorter as Canon says ... it's less than 50cm ... I think something about 30cm.

O.k., it's not the perfect macro lens, but I think it's a very good allrounder for beginners or let's say for SLR starters like me.
Your right.....this lens sees the most use on my D30
Jim C. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2002, 3:17 PM   #12
Senior Member
Robert Eastburg's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 126

I've had very good results with this lens, but it bothers me that the front element is wobbly. I sent it to Canon twice, and they say it's okay, but it still bothers me. I'm afraid to put it in a case, on-camera, front down, for fear of damaging the front element. My 75-300 IS has much less play.

Does anyone have any comments on this? Am I being obssessive, or is play this unusual?

Thank you for your experience.

(I wish I had seen the marcros earlier. I just bought a 50mm macro, which I apparently didn't need.)
Robert Eastburg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 1, 2002, 4:46 PM   #13
Junior Member
Chris™'s Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 28

Hi Robert,

don't worry ... the macro lens is definitly the better choice as a close-up lens ... the optics are better.

Regarding the wobbling ... I also have both lenses, the 28-135 IS and the 75-300 IS ... no wobbling.

But I have such wobbling on my good old Canon G1 ... a well know phenomenon ... and no problem.

I'm not shure, but I think it's nothing to worry about.
Chris™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 17, 2002, 6:28 PM   #14
Junior Member
traveler's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6

I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over a tiny bit of wobble/slop in the lens barrel. It is quite common on those models but has no negative effects on their performance. I also have had the 16-35 2.8L since February and find it to be a wonderful wide angle zoom. It is sharp, fast and extremely well built. It is one expensive bugger (about $1340USD) but worth every cent in it's given catagory. Surely a improvement over the 17-35 which I found not as sharp, wouldn't focus as close and was not as well built (also had more distortion).
traveler is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 9:22 PM.