Canon EF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 V USM

I bought this together with a Canon 500 in cash converters. My version is III made in Japan if that helps. I just now scanning some kodak portra I shot with this set up and am amazed with the results. Colour rendition is fantastic and decent sharpness. I use voigtlander lenses all the time which are well regarded as well as zuikos OM and this lens its holding it's ground well. And for the record I shot almost all shots wide open because I was doing portraits.
OK its not as sharp as the prime lenses and surely not as fast but the zoom range is perfect for what I do- people and wide angle-
I have not tried L lenses but this lens certainly gave me satisfying results.

Colour rendition
Zoom range
Portable

Cheap build
Slowish autofocus (not the slowest though)
Slow f number

Nikon 18-55mm kit lens
Nikon 50mm f1.8
Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f1.5
Zuiko 85mm f2
Tamron 90 mm sp f2.5
Many other Zuikos

not used

The very first 28-80 usm was fantastic then they ruined the mk2,They should all have just about stopped working by now.Then they have improved them slightly each mark after that.True its not an l glass lens but how many of these could you buy for the price of the 28-70L lense? Its ok for people just starting out.It takes a decent quality pic at f8+ and the contrast isn't bad and it is very light especially with a eos 500 or 300 body

Cheap lightweight Quiet quick focusing

Image quality not that good cheap plastic and flimsy not as good as the mark 1

canon sigma tokina tamron consumer and pro lines

not needed

This lens isn't as bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. No, it's not an "L" lens. Nor is it comparable to an "ATX". This is lens was not designed with the pro in mind. It's a consumer grade lens designed with the beginning photographer in mind. The lens does have a little distortion at one end or another. However, I haven't had any problems with it in my pictures, where it counts. It has a fast and quiet AF. This lens had surprisingly good resolution. I've gotten good results with enlargements taken with Kodak Max 400. My prints have come back clear and sharp. The lens is small and light. This makes the lens easy to carry and takes little space in the camera bag. It also makes for easy hand held use. Again, this is not designed for the pro. The pro or serious ameteur will not be satisfied with this lens. It was designed with the beginner in mind. The beginner will be at least content with it as he/she learns basic photography. Another lens with a longer focal range and/or larger apetures will be desired later. As one's skills develop and improve, you'll find the lens limiting. But for now it will server its user in mind just fine. These days, you can get Canon's 28-90 for not much more. If I'm correct, Canon is now (or will be soon) introducing a 28-105 lens as its kit or stock lens.

* Fast AF * Optics, resolutions * Size and weight (makes for easy hand held use) * Good for beginners, casual photographers * Inexpensive * Good choice to learn with

* Will be found to be limiting as skills improve and develop.

Pentax f/1.4 Sigma 28-200 Hyperzoom DL

N/A

This is a review of the Mk II version of this lens. My virtual reality research group recently purchased a very nice Canon D60 with a Canon 28-70L lens. Out of curiosity, I did come comparison shots with my cheap 28-80 zoom and the nice L lens. Honestly, it was hard to tell the difference. The L is (of course) a better lens, but with the 28-80 stopped down to at least f/8, it was very, very hard to see a difference in sharpness (even at f/3.5 or f/5.6, though, it was a close call). In fact, in a few double-blind tests my wife (who is also a photographer) and I could not see the difference between the two. Now, I didn't compare distortion, so that is still a factor. Colors came out differently between the two as well. The cheap lens produced slightly warmer colors in several situations. This had the effect of making the photos more attractive, however. The cheap lens has a smaller mininum focusing distance (38cm versus 50cm for the L lens). It also is much, much smaller and lighter. You shouldn't necessarily compare a consumer lens with a professional lens, but I couldn't resist. What can I say? This lens came with my cheap Canon EOS300 kit, and it holds its own. The L lens is better, but for a non-professional, is it $1500 better? Now that I have improved as a photographer, I am wishing that I had a slightly better lens, but the light weight of this one and my little comparison with the 28-70 f/2.8 L has made me hang on to it.

Light sharp good minimum focusing distance holds its own against a 28-70 f/2.8 L great for beginners through intermediate photographers quick, accurate focus

plasit build (though, haven't had a problem) distortion (though, not bad) vignetting (though, not bad) lacking f/2.8 end of barrel rotates (not good for polarizing or gradient filters)

Canon 28-70 f/2.8 L

none. It has even been backpacking in the alps and it still works fine.

This is a good lens if used within it's limitations. Stop it down to at least f8, 1/film speed for the shutter, or a stable tripod, avoid flare situations, and you will get sharp, relativly contrasty pictures. Many slam this lens as a cheap "Kit" lens, and it is packaged as a kit, and it is a "consumer" grade lens. All of this does not cause it to be a bad lens. It provides a useful range of focal lengths, fast focus, and sharp, relativly contrasty photos. From some of the comments though, I can see that consistency in build quality may be some what lacking.

Light, sharp, and inexpensive.

As with all zooms, it is prone to flar, and some what reduced contrast.

Canon 100-300 5.6L Canon 50mm 1.8 Mark II

Haven't had to use it.