From: kudva@ecn.purdue.edu (Gautham K. Kudva)
Subject: SUMMARY: short-range zoom for EOS
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:26:07 GMT

I had posted a few days ago requesting info on what short range zoom
to buy for my EOS-630. Since a couple of people showed interest, and 
"what-lens-should-I-buy" type questions are perennial favourites, I 
thought a summary would be useful.

Thanks to the following people for their comments and suggestions:

Farul A Ghazali
Toby Lai
Alan Sanders
and one other person who posted (Unfortunately I didn't save the
post)

My post was:
>I'd like to buy a short range zoom as the main lens for my EOS-630. 
>There seem to be a bewildering array of choices. Canon alone has some 
>four offerings -

>EF 35-70/3.5-4.5
>EF 35-80/4.0-5.6
>EF 35-80/4.5-5.6 USM
>EF 35-105/4.5-?

>There are others too like the 28-80 USM and 35-105 USM, but
>they're beyond my budget of ~$150. I've scanned through every
>Pop. Photo issue from Nov. '90 and only the 35-105 seems to be
>covered. Could someone with experience please provide feedback
>on the relative merits/demerits of these lenses (sp.?).  With so many
>choices from Canon, I've decided to stay away from independents
>like Sigma.

=======================================================================

Hi,

I used to own, both the EF 35-80mm USM and non-USM versions. The USM
version is of course, faster and quieter than the non-USM one,
although, the image quality is still not up to my standards. Both
lenses (and the 35-105mm too) are of the polycarbonate type; plastic
mount, flimsy looking, etc. I'd suggest that you try and get hold of
the older EF 28-70mm II, which is sharper than any of the lenses you
mentioned. Furthermore, you'd get the wider 28mm end with a larger
aperture (f3.5 vs. f4 or f4.5). Problem is, you'd have to find a shop
that sells the lens. I've seen a couple of ads in Pop. Photography
advertising the lens for about $159-169, although I've not tried
buying from any of the stores before. 

Hope this helps.

farul.

=======================================================================

I own the EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 and I think it is just an average lens.
The pictures produced from this lens are just average, not really sharp, but
not bad, though.  If you are going to shoot a lot of scenic pictures, I 
STRONGLY suggest you to purchase a lens with at least 28mm of maximum focal
length instead of just 35mm.  From my own experience, 35mm is just not enough.
However, since Canon does not produce EF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5, you really don't
have many choices except for the EF 28-80mm USM or L.

If you want to choose some other lenses made by other company, you'll have
a bit more choices.  I also own a Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8-4.5 SD, which I 
have been satisfied since I bought it ($169).  The pictures are sharp and
the color resolution is very nice.  There still is a Sigma 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 
UC ($125), which produces fine pictures, too (a friend of mine owns one).

I'm sure some other news reader will give you responses on your posting, too.
So, it would be really nice if you can post a summary in the newsgroup in the
future.

Hope my comments help, good luck.

Toby Lai

=======================================================================

You don't mention the 28-70/3.5-4.5 (Version II), which is
the best of the bunch. Reputed to be a *very sharp* lens!
It is now discontinued, but was widely advertised at
around $175, and I'd bet some dealers still have old
stock. You might easily pick one up for $150, and get
a much better lens than the new USM plastic wonders.

					-Alan
asanders@adobe.com

=======================================================================

>> I asked Toby for some more info. on his Tokina lens

Gautham,

	I have the Tokina AF 28-70mm f/2.8-4.5 for just about 2 months, and
it has been working fine.  I used to own only the Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6,
but a friend of mine bought a EOS 10s and that Tokina lens during the summer,
and he told me he is satisfied with the quality of the pictures.  He also
told me that he felt a little bit tight when he tried to put the lens onto
his 10s (it is a metallic lens mount), he also felt a little tight when he 
tried to turn the zoom ring.

	To tell you the truth, I do feel a little bit of tightness when I
put my lens on my 630, but the zoom ring of my lens is better than his, at 
least it's not that difficult to turn the zoom ring.  Well, even this
third party lens is not mechanically better than my 35-80mm, but the quality
of the pictures taken by that lens are no doubt better.  I guess no third
party lens will produce a lens that is mechanically as good as the original
factory of the camera, but given the price and the quality of the lens
element, I think it's worth (for some models) to invest on those lens. 

	Although the maximum aperture of the Tokina lens is 2.8, but it only
stays that way throughout the 28-35mm range. After it reaches 35mm, it 
becomes 3.5 until 50mm, then it's 4 until about 60mm, and finally, 4.5 between
60 and 70mm.

	The focuing speed is really not bad at all, it's faster than what I
expected from a 3rd party lens.  

	The macro ratio is about 1:4.9, and min. focusing dis. is about 1.5
feet.  I can only use the macro mode at the 70mm range.  On the other hand,
the EF 35-80 is better, you can use the macro mode all over the 35-80mm
range and the minimum focusing distance is about 1.2 feet, macro ratio is
about 1:4.

	Well, that's pretty much about the Tokina lens.  If you really want 
purchase the EF 35-105mm f/4.5-5.6 or the EF 35-80 f/4-5.6, I think you should
think about is very carefully because these two lenses are made of plastic
lens mount.  Also, the majority of the lens components are made of plastic.
>From my experiences from the 35-80mm, sometimes I feel like I am holding a 
piece of plastic toy, and the overall feeling of the lens is not that good.
The reason I bought that lens is I originally bought the EOS Rebel kit,
the 35-80mm lens came along with the Rebel.  After a year of using the kit,
I decided to switch to the more powerful 630.

Toby Lai

============================================================================ 

The other response which was a post also suggested the 28-70/3.5-4.5 . 
The preference for this lens was almost unanimous. However,
it's a pretty tough piece of glass to lay hands on. I've checked with many
of the stores listed in Pop. Photo. and none of them carry this lens. This
includes B&H, Adorama, CWO, Supreme, Genesis, Smile Camera, Peach State
and Beach of Maine. All but the first three had listed the lens in their
Pop. Photo. ads. The other stores that list the lens are the ones I
wouldn't dare to deal with based on the rec.photo survey and uniformly bad
posts they've received.

Once again, thanks to all who responded.

Gautham Kudva
kudva@ecn.purdue.edu




Newsgroups: rec.photo