28-105 USM Mk. I or 28-105 USM Mk. II?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

Is the 28-105 USM Mk. II lens an inferior lens compared to the 28-105 USM Mk. I lens?

I have heard that the Mark I lens is made in Japan, and the Mark II lens is made in Taiwan.

Does Canon's build quality suffer through changing the country of manufacture?

Should I expect any perceived difference in optical quality?

These lenses cost the same, and the only difference I can see from the outside is that the Mark II looks more modern and comes in a smaller box.

Thanks in advance....

-- Sam Hassall (samhassall@aol.com), August 21, 2001

Answers

Sam,

As far as I've heard, the two lenses are identical optically. The Mk II is only a slight change -- primarily the new finish you noted, I believe a wider focusing ring, and all Mk II's have a 7 bladed aperture diaphram (whereas the older Mk I's have a 5 bladed design & newer Mk I's have the 7).

I would not worry too much about which factory your lens comes out of, when it comes from a major lens maker such as Canon. These companies are very interested in keeping up their reputation for quality, and all companies (whether they are based in Japan, USA, or elsewhere) are relocating to China/Taiwan/Vietnam/etc. to reduce labor costs. I'm sure that if they had ISO 9002 (et al) ratings before the move that they will make sure to maintain the same quality assurance ratings. As far as the glass goes, I think it is still being manufactured in Japan -- it's just final lens assembly & perhaps some parts that are being done in Taiwan.

The 28-105 USM is well regarded at its price point. I'm sure that you'd be happy with either one. I'm not sure how you'd figure out if the Mk I you are looking at has 5 or 7 blades, short of taking it out of the box -- if it's even important to you (the 7 bladed diaphram should be better for portraits).

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 21, 2001.


I don't know when Canon changed the design, but the EF 28-105 (MK I) has had 7 blades for at least 2 years. I bought one in 1999 and it had 7 blades. I used to own a 1996 model with 5 blades.

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), August 21, 2001.

Puppy Face,

Thanks for the clarification! It sounds to me like the most important decision making factor, Sam, is the purchase price of the two versions before you! :-)

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 21, 2001.


Thankyou so much for your valued replies. I will be going for the Mk. II lens, as it will probably look better on the EOS 30 I am getting this weekend.

Thanks again.

P.S. With regard to the double posting, I tried to email Bob, but I got a return error telling me that the 'eosqna' email address doesn't exist. Any suggestions?

-- Sam Hassall (samhassall@aol.com), August 22, 2001.


Argh, choosing optics based on their looks?!? I'm mortified! Hmmm...on the other hand, I do lust after those pretty white ones...perhaps I should keep my mouth shut! :-)

Sam, In all seriousness - I've only heard good about this lens, and am sure that you will be pleased.

PS The double posting - I also sent Bob Atkins an e-mail. I know he's still involved & active - he replied to my thread about TC's a short while back. He is the one with site authority to delete threads, though. My my post to him bounces, I'll try to track down a different e-mail address for him.

-- Hung James Wasson (HJWasson@aol.com), August 22, 2001.



I have the 28-135 AF-IS which I suggest would be a better lens than the 28-105. Just my opinion based on my own comparisions and subsequent use of the 28-135.

-- Bruce Craig (birdphotographique@yahoo.com), August 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ