photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Ed | profile | all galleries >> Misc 2003/4/5 >> Canon Lens Test $1000 vs $100 tree view | thumbnails | slideshow

Canon Lens Test $1000 vs $100

This is a comparison of two Canon lenses at an identical focal length. It is not a perfect comparison by any means, as the lenses Zoom focal ranges differ. However both lenses were shot at 32mm being the long extreme on one and the short extreme on the other.

The shots are in the direction of the Kremlin, Moscow, Russia, from my apartment. You can just about see the Hotel Rossiya lettering of the hotel next to the Kremlin.

17-35/2.8L EF USM + EW-83CII Hood (Date of Manufacture 1999, USD $1000 used)
This lens, succeeded the 20-35/2.8L and was succeeded itself by the 16-35/2.8L. In the judgement of "L" lenses, this did not receive stellar reviews. The 16-35/2.8L is reputably somewhat better. However it is an "L" lens, and its certainly offers "L" performance.

28-70/3.5-4.5 II EF AFD + EW-68A hood (Date of Manufacture 1989, USD $100 used)
An unusual lens, in that it has the reputation of being one of the best if not the best none "L" zoom ever made. Although some attempt to compare to the "L" versions (28-80/2.8-4L and 28-70/2.8L) this is very tenous at best. However, one has to recall this lens is available for around 1/10th of the price of the latter two. Discontinued early 90's and replaced with inferior consumer lenses. A "classic" lens amongst Canon affecidenios. Getting rare.

Both lenses were shot at their fastest aperture (2.8 and 3.5 respectively) and f/8.0 at approx 32mm using a Slik Pro 400DX tripod with a Kodak DCS 560 (EOS 1n Hybrid) 6.1 MegaPixel DSLR @ ISO80 (the cameras lowest setting).

Post Processing.
No Post processing (such as sharpening) was done on the files except for TIF to JPG conversion in PhotoDesk 4.3.0.13

My conclusion: Very similar, although the 28-70 seems sharper stopped down! A surprise.
34QT3014 17-35.jpg @ f/2.8
34QT3014 17-35.jpg @ f/2.8		 34QT3012.jpg 28-70 @ f/3.5
34QT3012.jpg 28-70 @ f/3.5		 34QT3015.jpg 17-35 @ f/8.0
34QT3015.jpg 17-35 @ f/8.0		 34QT3013.jpg 28-70 @ f/8.0
34QT3013.jpg 28-70 @ f/8.0

comment | share
Ed29-Nov-2010 22:31
Yes, totally agree. I did this test a long time ago now but still hold the 28-70 in high regard. It was, and is, a fantastic lens!
Ashley Pomeroy 15-May-2010 19:07
By incredible coincidence I - until recently - had a Kodak DCS 560 and a Canon 35-70mm, which I bought in part because of this test. I came to the same conclusion, e.g. that the lens is essentially sharp across the frame at f/8 and six megapixels on an APS-H sensor (it's even more consistent on a Canon 10D).

On my 5D it was as good as the EF 28mm f/2.8 at 28mm - sharp in the middle but ropey in the extreme corners, and decent but not great at f/8 - but it's excellent at 70mm. In the end I decided that that range wasn't to my liking so I sold it, but I can't think of another autofocus zoom lens that's as good for £50.
Ed28-Feb-2006 11:28
Lenses don't come much better than the 28-70/3.5-4.5II, keep it, and have fun... its a great lens.
Guest 27-Feb-2006 17:16
I have this lens - 28-70/3.5-4.5 II EF AFD - and it takes wonderful, sharp pictures hand-held.. I bought it by accident when I first developed lens fever and got it for $60. Even though it is a good lens for what I use it for (a lot of outdoor shots of people in shade), I was thinking of selling until I read your post. For $60, what's the point? I'll keep it.
click on thumbnails for full image