$125 glass vs $800 glass how does it compare?

Today the USPS brought me a Canon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 USM Macro, that I purchased for a friend who is doing me a GIANT favor. This lens is very highly regarded on sites like fredmiranda.com, and the samples on PBase seem to back up the lens' reputation as a solid performer. Mine has a few small specks of dust inside, which garnered me a huge discount. Total cost: $127 shipped. These can typically be had from reputable used lens dealers like KEH for about $200.

Build Quality:

Out of the box, the lens is built similarly to the other middle range Canon lenses (i.e. far better than its price tag would indicate). It has the Canon flat black plastic finish of the 17-85, and 28-135 IS'. It is light weight but doesn't feel cheap like the newer batch of digital and film kit lenses. It is nice and compact, mating quite nicely with the Digital Rebel XT.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21.../IMG_1144a.jpg

I compared it to the only lens that I own that covers a similar focal length, the Canon 28-70 f2.8L. Compared to the heavy plastic of the L lens, this lens feels dwarfish and lightweight, but then again, the L is a bit unwieldy on the small XT.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp6.jpg


Performance:

This lens features Canon's USM for fast, quiet, accurate AF. When testing these two lenses against each other, they both seemed to focus just as fast and locked onto the soda can the first time. They were both virtually silent.


So far the $125 lens is keeping up with the $800 one, but what about image quality...?

Jamison - I think you've heard me rave about the 28-105 3.5-4.5 before (in fact, it's sitting on my XT right now.) For the most part, mine is a very good performer and I always recommend it. I wish it was a little wider at the bottom end of the zoom but I did use it when I had the 5D and was very impressed (I'll be posting some of those shots soon.) It almost had a fish-eye effect on close ups on the 5D. Mine was $229 new but worth every penny. Build quality and focus are quite good on this lens.

Image Quality

For the image quality tests, I took shots at all of the focal lengths marked on the lens barrel: 28, 35, 50, and 70mm. Where appropriate, I also threw in an image from the 35 and 50mm consumer primes I own. Since the 28-105 is, for all intents and purposes an f4, I shot all lenses at f4. For my test object, I shot a Mountain Dew can on the railing of my deck. I put the gatorade bottle in the background to see how the bokeh compares. The 28-105 features a 7 blade aperture, which, on paper, should lead to really nice bokeh. All shots are handheld at 400 ISO, small jpeg, Rebel XT, 100% center crops.

28mm
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp2.jpg

35mm
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp1.jpg

50mm
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp3.jpg

70mm
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp4.jpg


As expected the 28-70L comes out on top in all of the tests except for the 50mm, where the cheapo 50 f1.8 again proves its worth. The 28-105, however, is no slouch. It is nearly as sharp at all focal lengths as the much more expensive L, though the L seems to have a touch more contrast throughout. Despite the 7 blade aperture though, the bokeh was a bit of a disappointment. The L is the clear bokeh winner (no surprise, it's the best bokeh lens I own), but the bokeh on the 28-105 is no better then the cheap consumer primes.

The 28-105 also seemed to go downhill at 70mm. Realizing that f4.5 was the max aperture for the 28-105, and that most lenses are softest at their max aperture, I stopped both lenses down to f5.6. Much better - my eyes might be deceiving me, but the 28-105 seems a bit sharper...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y21...28105comp5.jpg

So bottom line, the Canon 28-105 seems to represent a great value in a sharp lens with fast, quiet AF.

so do you think this would be a good walk-around lens for doing wildlife, as well as landscape pics? Im looking for a new lens for my rebel xt, but on a college student's budget good lenses are hard to find.

Im looking at the 50mm f1.8 for portrait shots, as I have heard that one is a real bargain too.

Nice pics
Thanks
Matt

Looks like a decent lens, Jamie. 'Twould make a good walkaround at, say, an amusement park with the family - with no fears of smacking it against things due to low cost of replacement.

BTW I think your L and the 28-105 are about the same at 70mm f/5.6. I can't say with certainty whether one is any sharper than the other.

Hey Matt, welcome to the DCRP.

I think this lens would make a fine walkaround as long as you can live with the lack on the wide angle side. Remember, you need to multiply the focal length of any lens by 1.6 on your XT...so the focal length of the 28-105 would be 45-168mm.

Definitely, not too many $200 lenses make pictures this nice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsg2003gt

so do you think this would be a good walk-around lens for doing wildlife, as well as landscape pics? Im looking for a new lens for my rebel xt, but on a college student's budget good lenses are hard to find.

Im looking at the 50mm f1.8 for portrait shots, as I have heard that one is a real bargain too.

Nice pics
Thanks
Matt

---

It's a good walkaround lens, but I would imagine it being a terrible wildlife lens unless you are always very close to the wildlife you are capturing. Wildlife usually involves longer telephoto lenses that end up in the 200-500mm range. You might want to take a look at the Sigma 70-300 as a cheap telephoto that does the trick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cdi-buy.com

BTW I think your L and the 28-105 are about the same at 70mm f/5.6. I can't say with certainty whether one is any sharper than the other.

---

I think the same too. Can't really see a difference. I'm surprised at how much stopping it down from 4.5 5.6 helped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamison55

Hey Matt, welcome to the DCRP.

I think this lens would make a fine walkaround as long as you can live with the lack on the wide angle side. Remember, you need to multiply the focal length of any lens by 1.6 on your XT...so the focal length of the 28-105 would be 45-168mm.

Definitely, not too many $200 lenses make pictures this nice!

---

gotcha, forgot about the 1.6 thing.

all right, so I could do this 28-105 and then the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM for the wide angle stuff....

i can pay $800-$900 for both the lenses if they are pretty good.

promise..thats the end of my hijack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 24Peter

Jamison - I think you've heard me rave about the 28-105 3.5-4.5 before (in fact, it's sitting on my XT right now.) For the most part, mine is a very good performer and I always recommend it...

---

No one can argue with your shots Peter! Can't wait to see the 5D shots - and I promise not to hijack:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jamison55

...and I promise not to hijack:o

---

LOL. You know I said that just because I was jealous. :o You da man!