Canon 28-105mm, f3.5-f4.5 lens

[itsDing]

Has anyone got or used this lens on full frame cameras? I have had good results on my crop camera for studio portraits at around f8. I wondered if any photographers have an opinion on its edge to edge sharpness in general photography?. Opinions please.

 

[Dimes]

Has anyone got or used this lens on full frame cameras? I have had good results on my crop camera for studio portraits at around f8. I wondered if any photographers have an opinion on its edge to edge sharpness in general photography?. Opinions please.

Worse than most of other canon lenses but still decent. Its f/8 - hard to be terrible at this aperture.

 

[itsDing]

Is that your opinion as an owner and user of this lens Dimes?

 

[itsDing]

F11, sharp enough for portraits on my old 20D.

 

[M Stewart]

I've had one for several years, and have used it extensively on my 5D, 5D MkII, 1.6x crop bodies, and on my 1D IV. Where sharpness mattered, I was very pleased with its performance on my 1D Mk IV, but on my full frame bodies I can't say I've ever noticed any problems, but then I haven't looked for them until now! I bought mine in preference to the EF 24-105L for its smaller bulk.

I've now checked out some images from a visit to Oxford earlier in the year, when I used it on my 5D MkII. Conditions were ideal for street and buildings type photography, with clear skies and bright sun. On most shots its edge sharpness is fine, but on some at 28mm I can see a little purple fringing at the very edge of the frame (viewed at 100%), but it's not there at 55mm, but appears again at longer focal lengths. This is using medium apertures such as F/5.6 to F/8. On the same visit, I was using the new EF 35 F/2 IS, and where 35mm was appropriate, that's clearly the better lens.

 

[itsDing]

Those chromatic aberations (PS/Lightroom will sort them) you mention seem no different from most zoom lenses. I cant see a problem taking portraits with backgrounds within that zoom range on full frame. I have the mk1 35mm f2 lens, nice kit eh!

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

Has anyone got or used this lens on full frame cameras? I have had good results on my crop camera for studio portraits at around f8. I wondered if any photographers have an opinion on its edge to edge sharpness in general photography?. Opinions please.

Over the years, I've owned a couple of copies of this lens for one reason or another. It's an older lens, and a decent one in its day. These days, it wouldn't be my first choice by a long shot. On a modern full-frame DSLR, you'll get OK performance, depending upon individual skill level and how picky you are. Stopped down to f8, however, you shouldn't find any wrong with image quality. But I'd really be missing stabilization that dark.

 

[artlmntl]

You have one, so you know about its feel and handling. On FF, as a walk-around lens, it's okay. it tends to vignette at the long end. That won't be a problem at f8. Similarly, sharpness should be adequate. I like the 24-85 3.5-4.5 because it's tiny and flexible; but neither of those old USMs is going to trump the 24-105L or a decent 24-70.

 

[itsDing]

Some old lenses are very good, I have a 28-70 (45-112 on crop) which I also use for portraits (small and light), if I go full frame it will be a walkabout lens. The review in "Photozone" compares it very well with the latest 24-70. I have had the 28-105 from the film days (early 90's) I have also had and sold the 24-105L, too heavy and annoying lens creep. No problem selling images from the 28-105 at all.

 

[itsDing]

The 28-70 is f3.5-4.5, sorry not to mention that.

 

[itsDing]

Other old lenses which are held in high regard and still used.

35 f2

50 f1.4 and f1.8

85 f1.8

To name a few. I have owned all of them. I'm sure some you can add to the list.

 

[Michael Thomas Mitchell]

I like the 24-85 3.5-4.5 because it's tiny and flexible; but neither of those old USMs is going to trump the 24-105L or a decent 24-70.

I still refuse to sell my old 24-85 precisely because it is, as you say, so tiny. Though certainly no f2.8 L, it's still reasonably bright for what it is, and optically fine for most uses. Obviously, I prefer the 24-105 L, but, at twice the weight and size, it's not always as friendly for casual shooting. The 24-85 paired with a 6D offers a fine full-frame experience for travel, sight-seeing and personal use in a remarkably compact and light weight package.

 

[artlmntl]

Some old lenses are very good, I have a 28-70 (45-112 on crop) which I also use for portraits (small and light), if I go full frame it will be a walkabout lens. The review in "Photozone" compares it very well with the latest 24-70. I have had the 28-105 from the film days (early 90's) I have also had and sold the 24-105L, too heavy and annoying lens creep. No problem selling images from the 28-105 at all.

I have the 28-105 and the 24-85. No, I haven't had them since film days. I usually shoot with a 6D. I don't adore the 28-105. It's okay as far as it goes, but the zoom ring doesn't seem all that smooth. And for FF, I find 28 is too long on the short end and 105 is too short on the long end. I stuck the 28-105 on my old 350D and they're a good fit for each other.

I like the 24-85 a lot and I usually carry it along with a 70-300 IS. The situation tells me which to use. On something like a zoo trip, it's 70-300 all the way. For closer stuff, the 24-85 is fine. And I always carry a flash.

 

[OldSchoolNewSchool]

I had the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM II lens for awhile and used it on my Canon 5D. It was a good lens, though very soft up until about f5.0.

Before that, I had the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 USM lens, but didn't like it as well. Maybe it was my particular copy, but anticipating depth of field with the lens was hit and miss.

Both are good lenses; neither are great, though, on today's high-megapixel cameras. If you're on a budget, either one is fine. But if you have the extra $$, get something a little more modern.

 

[GordonAtWork]

I bought mine (mk1 version) with my EOS5 along with the 70-210 USM. That combination served me well and I also used them on my D60. Again, acceptable.

Using digital is a lot more demanding on lenses as pixel count/sizes increase so expect to be a little disappointed. I always found the two lenses lacking in contrast somewhat but that is also fixable (fringing mentioned earlier) so no biggy. My 24-105L also exhibits fringing.

I just got a Mk1 50mm f1.8 and I'll be doing test shots to compare it to my 50mm f1.4 so I may get the old lenses out and do a few more too.

These lenses are cheap to buy, I say go for it. (metal mounts too).

 

[artlmntl]

I like the 24-85 3.5-4.5 because it's tiny and flexible; but neither of those old USMs is going to trump the 24-105L or a decent 24-70.

I still refuse to sell my old 24-85 precisely because it is, as you say, so tiny. Though certainly no f2.8 L, it's still reasonably bright for what it is, and optically fine for most uses. Obviously, I prefer the 24-105 L, but, at twice the weight and size, it's not always as friendly for casual shooting. The 24-85 paired with a 6D offers a fine full-frame experience for travel, sight-seeing and personal use in a remarkably compact and light weight package.

It would be great to see updated versions of the better 3.5-4.5 lenses. Updated glass, better coatings, maybe with stepper motors. I think they'd be fun lenses! I think Canon could sell a pile of them, too. But I've probably got a better shot at seeing a 35-105 2.8. No, I guess that's not happening either.