Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 7, 2006, 12:24 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

Dear all,

I received the 28-200mm today and took some samples to see how it performed. After comparing a shot at 50mm with the 28-200mm, the 50 1.8 and the kit lens the difference is ridiculous! If I am to spend around 200 pounds on a lens I'd like at least to match the kit lens in quality. There is a 7 days return policy with the item and an exchange policy. I've tried the lens out quite a bit now and quality of the images is really poor.

Would something like a Canon 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 be much sharper?

I had wanted to buy this lens as a walk-around with at least the quality of the kit lens but if I only pull it out for long distance stuff I may as well buy a 70-300mm and be done with it.

I need some advice here as I need to act as soon as possible.

Alex

alexellisuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 7, 2006, 1:21 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 89
Default

Yea I'd say if you're not happy with the lens then by all means return it. I purchased a tamron 18-200 awhile ago and had the same problem (wasnt as sharp as the kit lens) so i returned it. I've used the canon 28-200 and its not bad its sharp but it doesnt have IS and I would rather a telephoto lens with IS. But i ended up buying the 28-135 IS and thats a great lens and if you have the money then I'd say go for that one. If notthenI'd saythe canon 28-105 would be around the same as your kit lens maybe a little better but I have never used it. And yes I find the best way to do it is to have a good walk around lens and then the telephoto lens for when you need it. I have a 75-300 and it stays in my camera bag most of the time. So I would say buy a good walk around lens and if you have the money get a good telephoto lens too, if not I would focus on getting a good walk around lens and buy the telephoto lens later. But if you stick with canon I dont think you can go wrong.
badhabbit05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:01 PM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

I find it hard to believe that a full-frame lens - any 28-xxx be as sharp as a 'digital' lens, i.e. an 18-xxx something - just check their MTF:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3563/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm

-> In almost all cases the 'digital' lens beats the 'full-frame' at least in term of sharpness

Zoom lenses have come a long way, and most 28-xxx something are pretty long in the tooth... in their design



Quote:
Would something like a Canon 28-105mm F/3.5-4.5 be much sharper
Absolutely the wrong way to go... :idea:
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 3:39 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 493
Default

Your best off doing 2 lens to cover the range.

The 18-200 lens tamron or sigma makes should be better than the 28-200 as NHL mentioned. Unfortunelty photozone doesn't have this lens reviewed. The only difference is that the full frame lens may be sharper on the corners and have less vignetting.

I would suggest a 16/17/18mm - 50ish zoom plus the canon 70-300 (which has resolution close to L glass).

This would give you more long end and wide angle.

Tamron 17-50 = $400, Canon 70-300 = $400

Thus, for $800 you can have 2 very capable lens that would be better than the 28-200.

But I realize you are looking for a walk around. I think at 16/17/18-xx mm would be a better choice than a 24/28-xx mm (unless you are using a full frame camera).

I just don't see how you can get a big zoom walkaround without major compromises, even the 18-200 lenses.
nelmr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 6:59 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

Thank you for your advice dudes. I think you are right and I can see that two lenses is probably the best way for me to go. I really love using the 50 f/1.8 and I have shot a lot of parties and gatherings lately -- I find it to be very sharp and have excellent colour. When I can't get wide enough or far enough back I've been changing over to the kit lens.

I spent £170 on the 28-200mm Sigma.

With this (above) in mind I think the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC would be an excellent walk-around. Reviews seem good although I don't know what these MFT charts are about. According to the MFTs is it a lot better than the kit?
The f/2.8 constant aperture would be great and I've been used to using the 50mm stopped down to f/2.8.

I can get the 18-50 f/2.8 for about £250 and I think it's probably what I need -- I just want to be sure that it will be nice and sharp with good colour.

It certainly isn't as sharp as the 50mm -- but would I be expecting far to much to hope for this?

http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/50mm_test.html
http://www.topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/index.html

Shutter talk seem to like it:
http://www.shuttertalk.com/articles/...50ex/index.php


What do you think?
alexellisuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 7, 2006, 9:29 PM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

alexellisuk wrote:
Quote:
It certainly isn't as sharp as the 50mm -- but would I be expecting far to much to hope for this?
FYI - http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/zoomvprimes

-> the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is probably a better buy over the Sigma though:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 4:23 AM   #7
Member
 
Broncosaurus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 37
Default

I'm in a similar situation here. New to digital (have a 350xt) I passed on the kit lens, opting for the 28-135mm IS. I was 'xcited about fake boost you get in range, then bummed when I figured out how it lops off the lower end. My next lens was an EX 150mm Macro. No zoom on it but more versatile, and ultr high quality. But what i'm missing is a big gun. So I ordered an EX 100-300 f/4. Everytime I've gotten a new zoom, I've been a little disapointed with it, so I added an EX 1.4 converter to go with it. As a bird 7 wildlife shooter,I'm psyched. Including the 1.6 crop factor I'll be looking thru 672mm of glass. The Island I live on is a great place to have good glass. I don't for see a need for a will angle until winter comes and all family gatherings are gonna be indoors The EX 12-24 is lookin' pretty good to me.

The thing that geets me is I has all this very high quality Konica/Hexanon stuff sitting iin a closet that I'll prolly never use again. The lenses are better than most made today, I grew up thinking all lenses weref/1.4 Never thought I'd see the day when manual focussing would be obsolete



It sounds like I might be a techno phobe, BUT I'M NOT! not that there's anythig wrond with that
Broncosaurus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 6:18 AM   #8
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Broncosaurus

You have some nice glass there:
o 150mm EX Macro - Probably the best macro lens out there in this range
o 12-34 EX - There's just nothing (full-frame) else like it by anybody
o 100-300 EX - The sharpest zoom around even compare to L priime
This later does cost slighly more than the EF 70-300 IS; However, it is a faster lens though and with a 1.4x it can exceed the 100-400L in performance so it'll depends on the need, i.e. reach or IS...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 7:13 AM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 15
Default

The Tamron looks good, but is out of budget.

I have been looking into the 17-70 2.8-4.5 Sigma vs 18-50 f/2.8 Sigma. Therefore I can find a very sharp walk-around lens with a safe and useful focal length -- probably the most useful for me right now.

I don't know which way to go..

The 17-70 isn't as sharp as the 18-50 but has very low CA and purple fringing even lower than the kit lens.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...2845/index.htm

The 18-50 is quite a bit sharper but has quite high CA at all local lengths, worse than the kit lens! I've seen it sharper at the edges than the 50mm f/1.8 from the review above. But CA is really important and if it's considerably worse than the kit lens then it would see a bit of a waste of money.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...0_28/index.htm

I don't know what to go for -- I'm used to the sharpness of the 50mm f/1.8 -- help!


Alex
alexellisuk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 8, 2006, 7:27 AM   #10
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

alexellisuk wrote:
Quote:
I don't know what to go for -- I'm used to the sharpness of the 50mm f/1.8 -- help!
Do you need f/2.8?
-> Wide aperture tend to have this kind of problem in high contrast areas... (It comes with my 50mm f1/4 too)

Otherwise: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3556/index.htm
... and low-light: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/143791
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:56 AM.