Simon #18969
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 0
Does anyone used this lens? Is it a full time manual AF lens. Want about imagequality?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Canon 28-200 USM
- Thread starter Simon #18969
- Start date
I try this lens one weeks before, it is very light weight, but feel very plastic,
this is good for "one len travel world".
I do not find the 28-200 USM on Canon's web site. Is it a new lens?
Is it a Canon lens or the lens of a third party company for a Canon camera?
Is it a Canon lens or the lens of a third party company for a Canon camera?
jeffrey behr
Leading Member
- Messages
- 623
- Reaction score
- 0
...and I couldn't find it at B&H...
wojtek28343
Active member
- Messages
- 83
- Reaction score
- 0
Joe Hawblitzel
Veteran Member
The lens is on page nine of the new Canon lens catalog I have. It is not a full time manual AF Lens. It does have a micro USM drive motor, inner and rear focusing and aspherical lenses. From the picture it appears to have a metal lens mount which I was surprised to find not all Canon lenses have.
Joe Hawblitzel
Joe Hawblitzel
Thank you for finding it. It looks like an interesting lens. Apparently it was announced in August, 2000. It looks very compact and light for such a lens. I have the other Canon EOS 10X zoom lens, the 35-350mm, and it is a lot bigger and likely to be a lot more expensive. It is a "L" series lens but it is said to be a little soft at the 350mm end. It probably is a little soft at 350mm but not eccessively so, since it has a quality that I really like. I like this lens for shooting soccer games from the sidelines. The 10X zoom range comes handy when players run up close to the photographer. Unfortunately, the zoom range is not as attractive for the D30 due to the 1.6X. The 28-200mm would be closer to the attractive range. I also wonder what the resolution is.
W
William Moore
Guest
Note that this lens is offered in one of the D30 bundles at State Street Direct. Since it's so new, I haven't found any reviews or evaluations of it. Anyone? What would this lens cost by itself?
-Bill
-Bill
I have seen it for sale at $500. Nikon has a similiar lens for their cameras at a similiar price. http://www.photodo.com tests the Nikon with a score of 2.6 out of 5. The Canon 28-135 IS lens is slightly cheaper, has image stabilization and has a 3.5 score. I would buy the 28-135 IS for it's sharpness.
W
William Moore
Guest
Okay, that helps me evaluate the bundle.
Bundle: D30 + 28-200 + 1GB Microdrive = $3950
A la carte:
D30 = $3000
28-200 = $500
1GB MD = $500
So the bundle isn't earth-shattering. Saving $50 may not be worth any compromises in lens quality.
Problem is, no one seems to know how sharp or unsharp the 28-200 is. Conventional wisdom is that a jack of all focal lengths is master of none, but it's not fair to prejudge. If it turned out the 28-200 was as good as the 28-135, then the bundle looks pretty interesting. On the other hand, you get two nice features with the 28-135: image stabilization and full-time manual focusing.
My gut feeling is that Canon is trying to dump the 28-200's through this bundle.
-Bill
Bundle: D30 + 28-200 + 1GB Microdrive = $3950
A la carte:
D30 = $3000
28-200 = $500
1GB MD = $500
So the bundle isn't earth-shattering. Saving $50 may not be worth any compromises in lens quality.
Problem is, no one seems to know how sharp or unsharp the 28-200 is. Conventional wisdom is that a jack of all focal lengths is master of none, but it's not fair to prejudge. If it turned out the 28-200 was as good as the 28-135, then the bundle looks pretty interesting. On the other hand, you get two nice features with the 28-135: image stabilization and full-time manual focusing.
My gut feeling is that Canon is trying to dump the 28-200's through this bundle.
-Bill
D
Daniel Lauring
Guest
I'd also be concerned with minimum focus distance. That was one of the killers for me with the Tamron Super 28-200. The minimum focus of the Tamron is something like 31 inches compared to about 11 inches for the 28-135mm.
artie Schleifer
Active member
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 0
I found some specs on the 28-200 Canon lens at:
http://www.canon-europa.com/cgi-bin/parser.pl?page=products&product=899&prodtype=37&subprodtype=80
It lists it as a NEW lens.
Minimum focus distance = 0.45 meters ~ 17 inches
I was also looking at this lens for a single lens solution to travel. I would also be interested in hearing if anyone has used it and the quality.
Artie
http://www.canon-europa.com/cgi-bin/parser.pl?page=products&product=899&prodtype=37&subprodtype=80
It lists it as a NEW lens.
Minimum focus distance = 0.45 meters ~ 17 inches
I was also looking at this lens for a single lens solution to travel. I would also be interested in hearing if anyone has used it and the quality.
Artie
W
William Moore
Guest
A good point. Minimum focus distances, according to Canon U.S.A.:
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM: 19.7 inches (0.5m)
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM: 17.7 in. at all focal lengths
So, close range advantage goes to 28-200. Canon claims that focus distance beats all competitors.
Of course, none of this matters if the 28-200 turns out to be a piece of doodoo. I was sold on the 28-135, but this dark horse has piqued my interest. I shall continue to scour for actual user feedback.
-Bill
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM: 19.7 inches (0.5m)
EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM: 17.7 in. at all focal lengths
So, close range advantage goes to 28-200. Canon claims that focus distance beats all competitors.
Of course, none of this matters if the 28-200 turns out to be a piece of doodoo. I was sold on the 28-135, but this dark horse has piqued my interest. I shall continue to scour for actual user feedback.
-Bill
JCDoss
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 7
Bill,
User feedback on this and virtually all currently marketed lenses can be found here:
http://www.photographyreview.com
Check it out. But make sure you read all the user opinions... they're far more important than the numeric ratings.
JCDoss
W
William Moore
Guest
JC,
Thanks for the link. Seems like a great site. However, the elusive Canon EF 28-200 USM is not listed there! I did, however, learn a few things about the 28-135 IS USM that I did not know before. Very good information.
The search continues!
-Bill
dloy
Active member
If you buy a 3000 US$ camera that will be obsolete in 2 years you should be able to buy the 28-70L and 70-200L (that will probably last at least another 10 years, not to mention that their resolution limit is around 24-48 megapixels
You can also get 99% of the optical quality at 50% of the price with the Sigma 28-70 EX + 70-200 EX HSM (but only the 70-280 is USM-like)
Catalin
Simon #18969
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 333
- Reaction score
- 0
Why would a D30 be obsolete in 2 years?If you buy a 3000 US$ camera that will be obsolete in 2 years you
should be able to buy the 28-70L and 70-200L (that will probably
last at least another 10 years, not to mention that their
resolution limit is around 24-48 megapixels
Well, if we look at a camera that was around 5000 US$ about two years ago we'll probably find something similar to DCS 3xx - which is quite obsolete today, so I assume that when you will have a 12-24 megapixel camera you will not pick the 3 megapixel
Maybe obsolete is a little too much, but considering that a very good lens will not be replaced for much longer I can't see why you should get a VERY expensive camera and pair it with a cheap lens (which was intended mainly for use with a 200-300 US$ film camera).
W
William Moore
Guest
Remember that everything is relative. On the planet of film photographers, specifically Canon 35mm SLR-shooting photographers, a D30 is not a $3000 camera...it's a $500 camera with a $2500 subscription to a lifetime unlimited supply of film, developing, and scanning. The D30 is a midrange (by features) SLR. The 28-200 is a midrange (by price) lens. The pairing will make sense for some.Well, if we look at a camera that was around 5000 US$ about two
years ago we'll probably find something similar to DCS 3xx - which
is quite obsolete today, so I assume that when you will have a
12-24 megapixel camera you will not pick the 3 megapixel
Maybe obsolete is a little too much, but considering that a very
good lens will not be replaced for much longer I can't see why you
should get a VERY expensive camera and pair it with a cheap lens
(which was intended mainly for use with a 200-300 US$ film camera).
Look at it another way. On the one hand one could buy a 28-200. On the other hand one could buy a 28-70L and a 70-200L. The L pair is twice the number of lenses, four times the cost, and four times the weight. For that you get two more stops, presumably some degree of optical improvement, and as you point out, a hedge against future technological advances. Which is the better value? Hardly a no-brainer, and definitely worthy of careful consideration.
I do understand your point. I just wanted to share my own analysis. I'm still wrestling with that value proposition myself. For the record I am neither for nor against the 28-200 because I know very little about its performance. I was glad to see that someone here posted an actual D30 pic taken with that lens!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=560443
-Bill
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum