canon 28-105 first impression :)

[drew_viii]

hi guys, thank you for all the comments and suggestions on the poll thread ive posted.. now i have just received my canon ef 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM II, gonna try this outside today, ill keep you guys posted of the pictures.. thanks :)

[kvdnberg]

Lucky you! I wish mine was in! Very curious about your first findings.

[drew_viii]

well, im back from taking pictures, couldnt upload it now though, havent uploaded yet, and getting lazy right now and pretty tired... well what can i say, generally the shots are nice, i cant say its sharp and all... maybe i just havent master the controls of my 30D hehe, need to practice more... the color is great though :) i have to admit the color of 28-105 is a lot better than my first kit lens, the "well-known" 17-85mm IS USM hehe...

the built is quite disappoiting though comparing to 17-85, at 17-85 you really get to feel it very well compare to 28-105, but hey, its a cheap lens :) its quite small too, a lot lighter for me... good for walk around id say... not really obvious distortioin at the wide ends and long range shots... no signs of CA and vignetting for the mean time, or maybe my eyes are just tired... ill keep you guys updated with my experience with this lens later on.. after a good night sleep hehe

[drew_viii]

here is some of my shots with 28-105 :) i couldnt get the 800 X 600 size, due to the file size, dont know why you guys could upload in that size with the limit anyways... here is it

[drew_viii]

here is another one...

[drew_viii]

close up shots with flowers

[drew_viii]

indian hehe... any comments guys? :)

[D Thompson]

here is some of my shots with 28-105 :) i couldnt get the 800 X 600 size, due to the file size, dont know why you guys could upload in that size with the limit anyways... here is it
If you are using PS and "save for web" there is a optimize to file size. Just put the size you want the file to be. It'll drop the quality down from the max, but not that big of a deal for stuff posted here.

[aparmley]

I think the problem he is running into Dennis is that he is uploading to the DCRP which restricts your file size to [if jpeg] 19.5 KB and 620px by 280px. If you sign up at an image hosting site, pbase, smugmug, photobucket, etc you can "link" to your images with this http://www.dcresource.com/forums/images/editor/insertimage.gif button. That allows you to post larger image sizes...

[coldrain]

I think the problem he is running into Dennis is that he is uploading to the DCRP which restricts your file size to [if jpeg] 19.5 KB and 620px by 280px. If you sign up at an image hosting site, pbase, smugmug, photobucket, etc you can "link" to your images with this http://www.dcresource.com/forums/images/editor/insertimage.gif button. That allows you to post larger image sizes...
Actually the restriction is about 136k and the resolution can be huge... He just runs into a crap JPEG save routine.

**edit: oops, as you can see further on in this thread the file size actually is a bit over 230kb for JPEG. That is what you get when you are too lazy to check it ;)

[aparmley]

Actually the restriction is about 136k and the resolution can be huge... He just runs into a crap JPEG save routine

Aahhahh! " Your file of 1.97 MB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 234.4 KB for this filetype."

your right about the dimensions. . . . I uploaded a huge file but reduced it to 229K. . . nevermind. . .

[drew_viii]

oh, alright... but hosting sites takes time to upload as well... which hosting site would be nice? i have snapfish account, but it really takes forever to upload the images there...

[coldrain]

Well.. the colours and contrast look very good from your lens, drew_viii. Maybe the pics are a tad overexposed (just a little, but I can be wrong :) ) but from what I can see the lens really is capable of making very attractive looking pictures.

[aparmley]

Well.. the colours and contrast look very good from your lens, drew_viii. Maybe the pics are a tad overexposed (just a little, but I can be wrong :) ) but from what I can see the lens really is capable of making very attractive looking pictures.

I agree drew I like the shot of the flowers.

Drew - you just need to save your files at a lower quality jpeg, which reduces the file size, then you can upload images that are larger than those that you have uploaded so far.

[cwphoto]

I agree drew I like the shot of the flowers.

Drew - you just need to save your files at a lower quality jpeg, which reduces the file size, then you can upload images that are larger than those that you have uploaded so far.

I dunno, they look good from here (maybe mine always look over too:( ).

Ditto flowers.

[aparmley]

I dunno, they look good from here (maybe mine always look over too:( ).

Ditto flowers.

"Look over" ?

Huhhhhhhhh?

I was referring to the size of his images [small], if that helps clear up why I typed what I did. . .

[kvdnberg]

oh, alright... but hosting sites takes time to upload as well... which hosting site would be nice? i have snapfish account, but it really takes forever to upload the images there...

Flickr works well for me. If you reduce the image size to 1200 or 800 you can get the pics there pretty fast. The free account allows for 20mb upload a month. And photobucket is pretty much meant for this kind of thing, image upload for linking on other websites, I think the pics 'expire' there after a certain time or something, but I've never tried it myself.

[drew_viii]

tnx for the comments :D well, im very satisfied with this lens now, what should i do if the pics are little bit overexposed? i really have lots of things to learn.. should i increase the ISO or not? or lower the aperture? tnx :)

how bout smugmug? i have to pay them though, but what are the advantages of smugmug over those free account sites? is smugmug fast whenever it comes to upload pictures? especially big sizes, cuz im bit lazy resizing everything... thank you :)

and what do you mean lower quality jpeg? do you mean i sould change the settings in my camera to medium lower quality jpeg for lower file size? or just for exporting the images from PS or DD? thanks again :)

[coldrain]

tnx for the comments :D well, im very satisfied with this lens now, what should i do if the pics are little bit overexposed? i really have lots of things to learn.. should i increase the ISO or not? or lower the aperture? tnx :)

No, the exposure is chosen by the camera unless you use full manual mode. My guess is you used spot metering for exposure mode, and when the subject is darker than the rest, and it only looks at the dark subject for metering, you get a bit over exposed photo.

[cwphoto]

"Look over" ?

Huhhhhhhhh?

I was referring to the size of his images [small], if that helps clear up why I typed what I did. . .

My bad; wrong quote - was referring to Coldy's quote in your quote...

...now I'm confused.:confused:

[drew_viii]

whats the use of spot metering though? hehe silly question? should i use filters too to reduce exposure? i want to learn more and more about it, i know it takes time... but ill learn slowly by posting pictures and asking some comments :) how does the camera over expose and under expose pictures? what are the solutions for it?

[cwphoto]

whats the use of spot metering though? hehe silly question? should i use filters too to reduce exposure? i want to learn more and more about it, i know it takes time... but ill learn slowly by posting pictures and asking some comments :) how does the camera over expose and under expose pictures? what are the solutions for it?

A camera assumes your subject is of average reflectance (it can't tell otherwise - it just measures light) for the purposes of metering light. This average value is calculated to be 18% (often referred to as '18% grey') of the light which falls on the subject.

So if your subject is not of average reflectance (eg; a pre-dominantly white scene (high-key) or a black scene (low-key)) then the meter in the camera will get the expsoure wrong to a varying degree.

[dky1e]

Here's a night photo I have taken with the canon ef-28-105. Love the lens.

[JMWallace]

the 28-105 was one of the lenses I had been considering, but I opted for the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6.

Based on some comparisons they are pretty close...but I wanted the additional length (don't we all :D ) and the IS.

Here is the comparison: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/
additional info:http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx.

Can't tell you how it's working out yet tho...not allowed to play with it until Fathers Day!!