According provided by Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Ultrasonic Canon INC. (MKII version with new zoom ring veining made in Taiwan) thanks to the store www.fotika.com.uawhere you can find a huge number of different used photographic equipment, including similar lenses for Canon cameras.
Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Canon INC.
In the review, I already had a previous version of such a lens, namely Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 Ultrasonic (MKI).
In this review, I will describe the main differences between the first and second versions:
- The MKI version was introduced in November 1992. MKII - October 2000. The MKII version is a newer lens.
- The first options MKI uses 5 aperture blades, the next - 7 petals. All MKII lenses use 7 petals. It is believed that this is the main difference between the lenses.
- Different names. The MKI version bears the inscription 'Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 CANON LENS MADE IN JAPAN Ø58 ′ (without the 'USM', 'II' and 'Canon INC.' Prefixes). MKII - 'Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Canon Inc. Ø58'(without the inscription' CANON LENS MADE IN JAPAN ').
- All MKI versions were produced in Japan, as evidenced by the 'CANON LENS MADE IN JAPAN'. Some lenses in the MKII version were made in Japan, others in Taiwan (labeled 'Canon INC.' As in this review).
- Versions have different veins on the zoom ring. Some MKII lenses have the same veins as MKI. Some MKII lenses have an updated design.
- Some of the MKI versions have an orange flower pattern near the 0.5m / 1.6ft lettering, while others have an orange 'MACRO' lettering. All MKII versions are labeled in orange 'MACRO'.
- The case design, font and cover of the case have been slightly changed. The new version has become more glossy.
Subversions Canon 28-105 / 3.5-4.5 actually turned out to be not two.
Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Canon INC., Lens shown on camera Canon EOS 450D
Sample Photos
Pictures from Canon EOS DIGITAL Rebel XSi (aka Canon EOS DIGITAL 450D, aka Canon EOS Kiss X2). Photos in the gallery are shown without processing, on camera JPEG. Everything was removed from the hands without using a hood, but with protective light filter Promaster 58mm UV Philippines.
You can download the original 'jpeg' photos at this link.
Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Canon INC., Lens shown with lens hood on camera Canon EOS 450D.
My experience
I have used a similar lens from Nikon for a long period of time - AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D. On a full-format camera, this is a very convenient set of focal lengths, so convenient that getting down from 105 mm to 70 mm with F / 2.8 was not easy. Slightly oversized aperture F / 4.5 versus F / 5.6 on darker lenses attracted me a lot, which served as a purchase Nikon AF Nikkor 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5D.
Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II The USM Ultrasonic is a comfortable, lightweight and fast versatile lens. May be a cheap replacement for Canon 24-105 / 4 L IS USM и Canon 24-105 / 4L IS II USM.
Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM Canon INC.
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
There were no special differences between the lenses of the first and second versions. I still recommend a newer version of Canon Zoom Lens EF 28-105mm 1: 3.5-4.5 II USM for purchase and use due to the 7-blade aperture.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
good lens, a good alternative to the native 18-55
Unlikely. On the crop, it is frankly narrow, and its wide angle is rather weak - here the HA, and the barrel, and the sharpness are not ice. But at a long focus, it gives good bokeh and can serve as a budget telephoto or portrait lens with a good picture and fast focusing.
I also have Japanese with the old knurling on the zoom ring (not like in this review), but with 7 aperture blades. I will not say the year of release, I took it off hand. So I understand that some kind of transitional version.
In confirmation of my words
And, yes, this is the first version, because the numbers 2 are nowhere to be found. The inscription MACRO is made in letters, there is no flower pictogram.
Send a view, where the inscription 3.5-4.5, I will supplement. Apparently they generally punched it horribly that Sigma has old, 100500 versions.
Please.
I suppose everything is much simpler. At first there was a Japanese 5-petal, then it was replaced by a 7-petal, and then the production was moved to Taiwan, and in order not to scare away the buyer, who in those years still firmly believed in Japanese quality, they said that this was supposedly an updated version, although it really was updated just a little design.
Thanks. Added information.
Arkady, and after 28-105 on Nikon that took a staffer?
There were a lot of things, most of all the staff was filled with 50 / 1.4G on the D700 and Tamron 28-75 / 2.8, which I consider the most successful budget good staff.
Arkady welcome!)
And how much does Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 go? Or the same flimsy construct as Tamron 17-50 2.8 ..?
The design is flimsy, but it walks very well, there are no critical failures like the 17-50.
The trunk starts to slide out easily (but there is a retainer), the rubber bands die. But it works like a clock, especially the older version without a motor and with a diaphragm ring. The nikon version is very tenacious, the kenon version is more vulnerable due to the electromagnetic diaphragm and the motor. I communicate with the master, he often goes through these Tamrons, says that he is “as simple as a door”, easy to repair and does not have critical vulnerabilities.
Actually, all the series of this focal Boot is a complete SHIT. And you don't have to choose there. The only thing they can do is film up to 18 by 24. It's not even worth trying on digital.
A very good lens is much better than a filthy whale. Was first at 1ds and now at 1ds mark 3
Took for 4t.r. for crop and ff. 5d shows itself better. I was very surprised by the confident autofocus in the twilight. By detailing, it does not quite reach 40cm, compared head to head. Miserable chromaticity is easily and non-sequentially removed by a profile from 24-105l. The lens was no longer produced only due to the fact that it is a strong competitor to the Elk. IMHO.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/159632864@N08/39965926713/in/dateposted-public/
Here's an example
It seems to me that a mistake crept in. In the second version there is a stub, which is absent in the pictures ..
There is no mistake. 24-105 (both Elks and the STM version) and 28-135 (it only exists in the first version) are equipped with a staff. 28-105 without a stub. By the way, he also has a version with a reduced aperture to 4 at the wide end, more compact and almost twice as light, with fewer elements.
Yes. You're right. Accidentally looked 28-135. It's a pity. good glass would be. Almost L :)
A very decent lens for a photo on the street. Especially if you really look at the process of photography. Many photographers suffer from a disease in the literature called graphomania.
Sigma AF 28-105mm f2.8-4 Aspherical vs Canon EF 28-105mm f / 3.5-4.5 II on a canon 6db unit I rent weddings, what should I take ???
Canon is better.
but what is better ??
More sharply, USM - faster, dear, corrected by the camera. Sigma, until recently, did little good, they were taken only because of the price. Well, some already openly pro-models.
Good afternoon! I choose a used lens. The owner writes that he missed this lens on the 6D. Could this depend on the model of the camera? Or is it a lens defect. My camera is 500D.
Just today I took one such lens. The owner wrote about the front focus, but on my ancient 50D and 450D carcasses it was not confirmed, it gets where it needs to be. Firstly, this glass is clearly not designed for high resolution matrices ... Well, capricious, because sharpness appears only from f / 8
Sample photos from the article confirm this, in pictures from f / 5 and wider - everything is quite soft.
Almost a joke, but on the 50D I only updated for this lens, and below is the 450D.
I am faced with a choice, 28-70 3,5-4,5 or 28-105 3,5-4,5? Of the Kenons, of course.
28-70 is less convenient, but the picture is better. In general, they are about the same
And what is better and how much? Perceptible?
In field resolution and distortion. If you do not put them side by side, then you will hardly notice the difference. I think you shouldn't bother and look for a specific of these two lenses.
I have a second version with a Roman numeral, but there is no inscription made in Taiwan on the bottom, and made in japan is written on the hood, apparently when changing the design, for some time the second version was produced in Japan, and then transferred to Taiwan, the Taiwanese versions seem to have gone already without lens hoods are included, and later versions lost their gold paint, but in order to save money!
That's what for all the time using this lens, in the end, I don’t like it. Either this is a feature of my copy, or the model. The trunk in a wide position has a monstrous backlash. No influence was noticed on the picture, but somehow it is still very strange. Collars are intact, there is no wear and tear, under its own weight the zoom does not wobble. And there is a backlash.