View of the lens Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-70mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II and sample photos from it prepared, especially for Radozhiva, Mikhail Sazonov.
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II
History
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II - a good full-time lens of the film era. This is the first full-time zoom for Canon EOS cameras.
Only two lens modifications were released:
- Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 - the first version. It has metal parts of the focusing system mechanisms.
- Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II - the second version presented in this review. The beginning of 1988. An aspherical element was added to the optical circuit. Details of the focusing mechanisms are made of plastic.
Design
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II
The copy of the lens that I had is one of the first. Judging by the number on the mount, it was released in 1988 (!), But this did not affect its external and internal condition in any way. The lens, although plastic, is firmly knocked down, nothing dangles, does not play, despite its years. It lies well in the hand, it feels 'pleasantly plump' and 'real', especially after the small and incomprehensible EF-S 18-55. There is a metal bayonet and a distance scale window with markings for work in the infrared spectrum.
Brief characteristics of the lens:
| Focal length | 28 mm - 70 mm |
| Optical design | 10 elements in 9 groups, including 1 aspherical. |
| Maximum aperture | f / 3.5 - f / 4.5 |
| Minimum Aperture | f / 29 |
| Number of petals | 6 |
| MDF | 0.39 m |
| The weight | November 285, XNUMX |
| Filter diameter | 52 mm |
| Lens hood | EW-68A |
The zoom ring is rubberized, about a centimeter wide, weakly damped, did not cause discomfort when working with the lens. The force is uniform. The zooming in on this lens is very interesting: the EF 28-70 does not change its size when focusing, although the front lens moves inside the lens. So the zoom is not quite internal. This causes some inconvenience when using filters: the thread for them is made on the lens barrel and is sometimes hidden in the bowels of the lens. Canon called this technology a unique three-group zoom. The rear lens is firmly fixed in the mount and does not move anywhere, the effect of a vacuum cleaner is absent. Mounting the hood at the EF 28-70 on the latches, there is no transport position (the hood, however, I had was not original). The diaphragm has a total of 6 rounded lobes.
Focusing
But when focusing, the front lens of the lens comes out with a trunk forward and rotates. This, of course, also makes it difficult to use filters. And if you can get rid of the first drawback (hiding thread) protective filter, then with the second drawback inherent in most whale lenses, you have to put up with it. Focus mode is switched by a switch on the body. I liked the switch itself, but its location is not very convenient, you have to change the grip and frantically search for it.
Focus ring about 5 mm wide, plastic, not damped. It spins in jerks, it feels like it's biting into the plastic frame of the lens. The stroke of the ring is about 180 degrees, which contributes to comfortable manual aiming. During autofocus, the ring is not connected to the focuser mechanisms and rotates freely, without affecting the focus.
The MDF lens is 39 cm, the maximum magnification is 0.22X. The lens is definitely not suitable for macro, even despite the beautiful focus scale with the inscription “Macro”.
The autofocus drive uses a conventional micromotor. Autofocus speed is average, lenses take about 1 second. My copy had a small back focus, constant at all focal lengths, so this defect can be corrected by introducing an AF correction.
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II
Image quality
And here the old dark and nondescript lens turns into a swan. No wonder some consider this lens a legend. Up to 50 mm on the crop, it is sharp, starting with an open aperture. Only the very corners of the frame sag slightly. With f / 8 it is very sharp across the entire field, even on the FF (judging by the reviews, the information is not verified).
Chromaticity is poorly expressed, freezing is absent. The strongest chromatic aberration manifest themselves at wide angle and open diaphragm. After 50 mm, a slight effect appears on the open monoclethat disappears as the diaphragm covers.
Vignetting annoys only at the edges of the focal range and only at the open.
Distortion: a classic 28 mm barrel goes into a 70 mm cushion. The character is simple. The value is not annoying. Backlight carries surprisingly well, the contrast does not fall.
It seems to me that the photos from this lens are given with film even on a digital carcass. And sharply, with good micro-contrast, and soft at the same time. On covered apertures, this lens competes with the Canon Elks 28-70 f / 2.8L and 24-105 f / 4L.
Photo examples
Sorry, the lens is sold. Therefore, frames whose originals were found by a lucky chance do not shine, but, in general, reflect the nature of the image of the lens. All photos are presented without processing, only development in ACR and in some places correction exposure. The shooting was made at Canon 450D.
Source files can be downloaded at this link.
A few more frames with correction so that it is not so sad:
My experience
Considering a lens cost of around $ 100- $ 150, this is just a Canon find and secret weapon. I used this lens for several years and was very pleased with it, despite the lack of a small stabilizer aperture etc. limitations. Everything that is better than EF 28-70 costs already quite different money and is not always affordable for an amateur.
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 II
Conclusion
Canon EF 28-70 f / 3.5-4.5 is a good full-time lens. Perfect for beginners, frugal and economical photo lovers. Competitors for this lens include:
- Canon EF 28-135 f / 3.5-5.6 IS USMhaving the worst optical characteristics and design, but equipped with a stabilizer and USM drive, as well as having a larger range of focal lengths.
- Canon EF 24-105 f / 3.5-5.6 IS STM. I didn’t use it, I don’t know, but it costs twice as much.
The rest, similar lenses are even better, larger and more expensive than the one in question.
Thank you for attention.
If we are talking about old lenses, then it's quite a competitor to 28-105 / 3,5-4,5. It may lose a bit at a wide angle, but at the long end the lens is just great
Yes, I lost sight of him
And from 28-105. This time by 28 mm. It seems quite a worthy competitor.
even without magnification, it can be seen that the column on the left is very hard
Well, frankly, the problem is visible only if you shoot in JPEG, it is very easy to fix in a ravah.
well yes. shoot only in RAW
however, I only do that
And here the old dark and nondescript lens turns into a swan.
In what sense? Does it really turn into 85mm F1, 2? The thought of transformation is not finished, it seems to me.
In general, thanks for the review, it was nice to read.
Soap with soap, where the author found the sharpness is not clear (maybe they did not completely correct for b / f) ... but the work in counter is really not bad and in fact, even the digital has the charm of the film.
For canonists, it will do.
Yes, "what is good for a canonist, death for a Nikonist!"
I don't even know - are you kidding the Nikonists or the Canonists?
over the Fujinists)))
ss, did not catch!
but funny if you think about it then!
There is no soap, just the photos are not successful, and there are no other rabbis. Correction BF 450D can not be done, current service
good review.
How is it compared to Tamron F2.8 28-75?
I do not know, I did not try this lens and did not even hold it.
Not even for 2 heads, but for 7-8, maybe more. I was like this, I tried it on the third brand, well, I'll tell you - it's better to shoot with a tin can than to be so squalid. Working diaphragm from 8 onwards. Backlight is deadly for him. At apertures less than 8, it behaves like a monocle.
I can answer. the tamron is two heads taller than the lens in this review.)
Tamron is simply a masterpiece of optics to save with this misunderstanding.
Sorry, but I didn’t see a picture of the lens at all - one mess and flat images, IMHO of course.
I have it, the second version. I once bought it as a staffer for crop. And HA there are noticeable, and the sharpness is comparable to the price. Not impressed by anything. Maybe he would play in full shot, but I don’t have it.
Now I’m using 28-105 / 3.5-4.5 of the first version, which is faster and more focal, it’s a bit more convenient, the front lens does not rotate, the XA is much smaller.
So I also once chose 28-105 because of the motor, because of the opportunity to use the polar and, first of all, because of the pleasant pattern on the long end.
In haste, I nevertheless compared 28-70 / 3.5-4.5 and 28-105 / 3.5-4.5 (alas, everything is on the same crop).
At 28-70, the sharpness at the edges is noticeably higher than at 28-105. There is no give, no take.
Well, it's worth adding that 28mm on the crop is a little narrow. There will be no wide angle
for $ 100-150 this is not a find, it’s better to use the whale for free and save for something better
What all the same muck this lens and 28-105, although a little better, but also muck.
100% to the point, nothing good about the price (
Something is also not impressive - I did not understand at all where the quality of the image, assembly and the promised swan, what is here for 100 Baku pulls - did not understand. I will go to my "blackened pans" and take pictures of what they like to call them here.
And I like Dmitry’s photo from 28-105 on the long end, the bokeh is nice and the color rendering in the photo is good
Yes, and for 10-150 you can take a good regular fix
40mm pancake for example
I had one. I led on reviews like this, bought it. Used on crop (30D, D60) and in full frame (5D). On a closed aperture (from 5.6) sharp, but not to say that the EF-S is better
18-55mm 1: 3.5-5.6 On the full frame the same picture + more vignetting. You can buy an EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS for a crop for the same money that is asked for this old junk. And the wide angle will be, and the stabilizer, and the USM motor and the sharpness is better. And for the full frame, there are no normal (budget) options except for the EF 28-135mm 1: 3.5-5.6 IS. And only a person who has never taken pictures of it (L) can compare it to the L-series ...
Support.
On FF engo application is also doubtful. If a person has found $ 1000-2000 for a car, then he will be able to allocate more than $ 100-150 for a lens. And on the crop there are cheaper options and at least no worse.
Pіdtrimuyu. On the EF-S 17-85mm 1: 4-5.6 IS USM crop for $ 100-150 for the time being. Klasna, shustra, rizka reportage lenza, with a really practical stub.
What a cool thing? G ... sad, even a Nikon whale 18-55 will be a hundred times better than a boot whale 17-85. HA 17-85 are simply terrifying.
My 17-85 is practically not chromate, you can see that such a copy is caught. At my glance, 17-85, there is one of the most beautiful whales in the line Kenon for crop. 17-85 all for all whale with the minuses and pluses of whale assets, Protect the price for all 100%.
Win a maximum of 15% of its wines. I is not great. G ... sad.
From the ancients there is still an ef 35-105 3,5-4,5 trombone, on the long end not bad, on the short end not very, but most importantly it is cheaper than 78-70 and 28-105, not so soapy and has at least some kind of picture
Below from him a photo (35-105) of processing is not generally shot at 62mm f4
here the photo was taken on the same 35-105, shot at 105mm f4,5 and also without the slightest processing,
and I would not say that I am satisfied with this glass, so-so, how the whale will go and probably shit at its price.
All the same, 35-105, so I found a shot and at 35mm the truth is a hole at 4,5, but as you know, such things are not the only fool can take on a completely open aperture, just like the previous ones, it has no processing.
The lens is none. I haven't seen such a soapy picture for a long time.
nikkor 28-80G is better.
the best in him is apparently a bayonet mount
Apparently not.
The same thoughts visited. The lenses seem to be similar, but Nikon XA has less and better sharpness, as well as focusing speed, which amazes me personally, even when compared with modern lenses.
there is such. generally very good. I love this lens, there is still something of the film in its picture, albeit with the letter G. at the expense of speed, yes, a screwdriver is power!
Here he is on the third mark
And what a bad photo? All contrast, good soft transitions. The sharpness of such a small image is still not appreciated. A decent result.
Yes, it's decent, it's decent, only this is the _MOST_ best shot taken on this "misunderstanding". As already said here, it will go for shoemakers. In general, everything on the hole, open 8, is horror and darkness. The backlight for him is death. The hole is more than 8 (more in absolute terms - death. HA - go off scale. Moreover, it is on FF, but on crop ... uuuuu ... horror. In general, the cropped SAPOP is terrible darkness, only FF SAPOP reaches the Nikon crop.
In order not to offend the cobblers with the previous post, I will say that FF SAPOP is better than FF Nikon, but here the dynamic range of Sapop is lower than the baseboard. Either the lights flew away, then the shadows did not work out. But, for the sake of truth, in the style of hi-ke on Nikon can not be removed. I just tried everything, no Nikon, that on the boot and FF and crop.
Canon's DD FF is quite adequate to the requirements for modern digital photography. You can always strive and choose a frame with such a difference in brightness that a film (not to mention “nikon”, Great Canon forgive me) cannot handle DD.
ALL modern CZK in skillful hands is a suitable tool. You can't say that about lenses, of course.
I have my own opinion about the optics - a fix of the middle price category (and sometimes a budget fix) produces a picture like a zoom of the upper price segment.
Who would be against it, just after Nikon, on Canon it is very strongly felt. Well, not that dynamic range - it is much worse and you have to pull in those places where Nikon has everything from the beginning, and you can also stretch it.
when I hear "quite adequate" or "justifies its price", for some reason I hear "garbage, but nowhere to go, eat what they give."
On the other hand, if it weren't for the canon, who would the Nikonists pledge over then? ))
Give an explanation of the shares of the Central Control Commission. Why does the short-lived Canon cover the rest like a bull sheep?
millions of flies can’t be wrong!
By the way, if we talk about the dynamic range, then this is more merit Sony than Nikon
Such reasoning can take a long way ... Everyone is in the furnace except Hasselblad or, at worst, Leica
Only obscura, only hardcore!
Just something a fellow from the system then jumped
Said - nowhere to go
Lynx, practically in solidarity with you, I would say so, if not for Canon, then Nikon would have stood in the same place as Canon, giving out “new” models with old content (550D ... 700D), and so, thank God that it exists, it drives “our” producer into something new. And really new, and not only in new figures in “new” carcasses with old contents. Tell me, shoemakers, what has changed in the crop after the 550D? Absolutely nothing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, the numbers have changed !!!!!
Hurrah! Adequate person in the comments !!!
Well, after 550 there are still usable hundred and 650, with touch screens and light.
Another thing is that they are at the top of the development of amateur crop. Further only a dialectical leap.
What's the touchscreen for? What's in the cold, what's in the humidity is a useless thing. Besides? The same 550D, only with buns that could be added to the 550D at the firmware level (flash control as a master, that's all), which is already in all (almost all) of the youngest Nikon models. In general, you are a competent person who understands that nothing changes from the model number (in the canon).
Well, Nikon, how tall?
600-610, 7100-7200, 5200-5300-5500, 3200-3300 (3500?)
- just a minor revision of imperfections, in fact, adding-removing wi-fi, and that's it
in general, if we talk about the Canon 550d, then for Nikon you need to start from d5100 to d5500, and from d3100 to d3300. and there is a cardinal change of the matrix - from rather frail in the d3100 to "almost multi-roundness" in the d5500. Plus a definite improvement in the work when shooting video, but the focuser has hardly changed.
and elsi at canon there is no big difference in taking 550d or d760 (not counting the show-offs and screen), then Nikon has a very big difference in the output photo between the d3100 and d5500.
toilet paper is also meaningless in a forest in a thunderstorm.
This does not mean that it is unnecessary at all.
In fact, it is quite a handy thing.
but yes, the 650d is essentially a well-improved 550d - lightweight, with extra features and a little better performance.
well, sort of there with a matrix odd mutili, for the better
And to be honest, I am sure that "for defacek and novice photographers" - more than anything, you don't need what's in it.
I’ll say more .. here in a personal note they came with the traditional “I want to be a photographer, what camera should I take”,
So, “for a beginner fashion photographer”, for good shooting and creating a cool image, at a cost “within 70 thousand rubles”, one of the most interesting and convenient (in my opinion) was the option:
Canon 100D Whide
Canon 40 / 2,8 Whide
Canon 70-200 / 4 Whide.
What does whide mean white?
Indeed, Canon is boringly traditional - starting with its own matrix production. Nikon has constant improvements - now Toshiba matrices, then Sony, then ... :)
And in my opinion they are the same (c) ...
Taking pictures with Canon-Nikon-Pentax, I did not see such a difference directly. There is no “wah” effect when shooting in RAW, frames from all systems are almost identical. So don't care what to shoot.
Perhaps I agree. Once I watched a video with Dmitry Shatrov and the phrase sounded: "in our time, the carcass does not play a big role and you can get good pictures on an inexpensive 400d canon, as well as on a more expensive carcass"
The optical design of both versions is identical and includes an aspherical element.
Interesting. I saw in the internet that the aspherics went only from the second version. Apparently the information is not reliable.
The difference between the second version and the first: the second version has plastic gears, that's all.
We will know
Canon on the Canon Lens Hall website is misleading: there is no description at all on the page of the first version, an aspherical element is mentioned in the description for the second version - the public concludes that there is no aspheric in the first version.
Even as misleading.
Comments on the topic of politics (as well as the related topic of language, countries, etc.) were cut out of the discussion. With repeated scribbling on this subject, everyone is banned. Rules Radozhiva here.
what kind of people ... shit everywhere. ((
My friend 7dmark2 so he does my d7100. IMHO.
what a surprise!
the opposite would be extremely surprising
$ 100- $ 150 ??? Ebay- 15-20 €…
Well, in Russia they want 7-8k for him ...