EOS Rebel 2000 28-80 lens

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

Hi

I have a Rebel 2000 with 28-80mm lens and 70-300mm lens. I am happy with the performance of my 70-300 but not with 28-80. I am now planning to get rid of my 28-80 and get another one which can replace the same range. I have read few reviews about Canon 28-105 EF II USM. How is this lens? Any suggestions from its real users? What about getting Canon 50mm 1.8 lens along with it? Will it be a good combination? My aim is to make good sharp pictures.

I am not interested in any lens other than Canon.

Please guide!

Sharath

-- Sharath (sharathblr2000@yahoo.com), December 20, 2001

Answers

I've used the 28-105 MkII lens for several months now and am quite pleased with it. It is capable of good sharpness for versatile use, and is a very good value.

The lens uses the 58mm filter size you already have. With a 250D close-up lens it gets close to 1/2 life size; add a 25mm extension tube and you get almost 1:1 with good results.

As to the prime, decide what your primary application will be. The 50 1.4, 85 1.8, and 100 2 are all good choices. If your primary application for the fast prime will be portraits go with the 100 or the 85. If you just want a fast prime for general use in this range go for the 85 1.8. The 50 has a traditional place as the default fast prime because its perspective roughly equals that of vision, but imho an 85 gives you, in general, more compositional punch.

-- Rod (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), December 20, 2001.


it would seem to me that the canon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM would make more sense than the 28-105mm. since you already own the 70-300, what sense would it make to duplicate the later focal length of the 28-105, in particular because it isn't famous in its 100mm area to begin with. from what i heard from other people, who've done some tests, the 28-105 is pretty sharp until about 70mm, then its resolution drops significantly.

on the other hand, the 24-85 costs about $100 more, but it would allow you to cover the wide-angle area better. photodo rates the 28-105mm a 3.3, and the 24-85 a 3.1. the 50mm 1.8 is rated at 4.2, and signficanly sharper than any zoom lens you would own. your 70-300mm is rated at 2.9 and is known to be very sharp at the 70mm length (but lacks significantly the more you zoom out, and is supposedly very bad at its 300mm length), and your 28-80 is rated at a rather pathetic 2.2.

the 28-105 was my first lens with my EOS A2. it's definitely an awsome lens at an awsome value at its relatively cheap price. since i've bought a 50mm 1.4, 100mm 2.0, and 200mm 2.8L, it hasn't been used too much in my work. it's still very useful, however, for the times when i need something light and versatile and when i don't have the time to change lenses all the time.

-- m. lohninger (anadirn@mediaone.net), December 20, 2001.


Hi, I'm jumping in late, but you could get the 24mm f2.8 and the 50mm f1.8, both of which are super sharp, if that is what you are looking for. Of course, it will cost you double the 28-105. Once you start comparing pics from primes to non L zooms, the non L zooms will just start gathering dust. J.

-- Jason Eadie (jason_eadie@hotmail.com), January 07, 2002.

EF 28-105. Good overall lens. EF 50 f/1.8II. Good, cheap lens. Good choices for good optical performance.

-- Lee (Leemarthakiri@sport.rr.com), January 08, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ