Thoughts on the EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM len?

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

Does anybody use this len and/or has anything to say about this len? Mainly the "bad" side of it, such as not photos turn out blur when shooting at 200mm. I tried the 35-350 IS len before and when I shot at 350mm close up headshot, the photos turn out pretty blur and soft, so I don't know if the same thing will happen with the 28-200mm len. Any inputs will be great, thanks, Gabe

-- Gabe Choy (Gchoy@aol.com), September 29, 2001

Answers

I haven't used the lens, but I suspect that if the 35-350L isn't sharp enough for you, you would not be at all happy with the 28-200.

I suspect that technique rather than optics was probably responsible for "blur and soft" images with the 35-350 though.

-- Bob Atkins (bobatkins@hotmail.com), September 29, 2001.


Thanks for your response. When I shot with the 35-350 IS len, I was using my studio light and shot at 1/125 at F8, using AF. So it is quite impossible for the photo turn out soft. The photo was a headshot of the model and her face looks "soft", nothing is sharply focus. So I am wondering if it's because the IS len has too many elements and groups and costs the photo turn out soft at the max. range.

-- Gabe Choy (Gchoy@aol.com), September 29, 2001.

The 35-350L isn't IS. Shame really, because it's a perfect candidate for it...

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 29, 2001.

>When I shot with the 35-350 IS len, I was using my studio light and shot at 1/125 at F8, using AF.

Hm. Well, a) as noted above the 35-350 lens doesn't have IS, b) 1/125 is too slow a shutter speed for realistically shooting at 350 mm without a tripod, c) why on Earth did you try to shoot a closeup head shot at the long setting of a 10x zoom? d) you know that the 28-200 is a consumer lens and the 35-350 is an L series lens, yes? e) is this a troll?

-- NK Guy (tela@tela.bc.ca), September 29, 2001.


The 35-350L is not as sharp as other L series lenses. We know that. It is however, a lot sharper than any other 10x zoom (possible exception of the Sigma 50-500, which I've heard good reports on, but I have used neither lens), and sharper than any consumer lens.

So the simple answer to the question is, no, the 28-200 will not produce a better image than the 35-350L, if each lens is treated carefully.

However, as said before, a soft image is likely due to technique.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), September 29, 2001.



I used to own the EF 35-350 3.5-5.6L USM and, with good technique, it is capable of professionally sharp and contrasty images. However, a headshot at 350 mm, even at F8, has an extremely narrow depth of field. With AF locked on the eyes, most of the face falls outside of the plane of focus (blurry nose, ears, etc). I couldn't handhold this lens in bright light at 350 mm and get consistently sharp images (I shoot mostly slow chromes). You need to use a tripod or maybe a monopod when shooting at 1/125 sec if you want a sharp image.

If this lens actually had IS I wouldn't have sold it. If Canon updates it with IS, I'll be first in line to get another one.

I haven't used the EF 28-200 USM, but I seriously doubt it comes anywhere near the EF 35-350 3.5-5.6 USM in optical or mechanical quality.

Aloha

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), September 29, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ