How is the build quality of the 28-70 f/2.8L?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I am about to bite the bullet and buy the 28-70 f/2.8L. I am really excited to get it after reading all of the great reviews and comments but I do have one concern. I have read in a number of places that there have been quality control issues with this particular lens. Does anyone have firsthand experience that they could elaborate on? Any specific things that I should be looking at before I walk out of the store?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

-- Jim Clifford (Jclifford345@earthlink.net), August 11, 2000

Answers

Jim: My first copy of the 28-70 was purchased new about two years ago, and I eventually sold it because (unlike the 70-200/2.8L, for example) I felt it was not as sharp as I had expected. (I was comparing its performance to the 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 EOS prime lenses). I then returned to the above mentioned primes, and in the meanwhile I continued to agonize over the possibility that I may have had a lemon 28-70. After a recent vacation in which I found myself really missing the convenience of the 28-70 zoom, I bought another new copy, and this replacement lens is superb. I do not know if Canon has made any (un-publicized) improvements to the optics of later production runs of this lens, but I seem to recall that the lens hood of my older unit was petal shaped, while the hood for the newer unit is not petal shaped (but I could be mistaken); the new hood seems wider and slightly deeper. Also, the new lens does not come with a hard case, but rather a leather pouch, much like those found with EOS teleconvertors. I mention these differences because they may help you to distinguish a given "new" 28-70/2.8L as being an older or newer version. Again, it should be stressed that I have no idea if Canon made any improvements to the lens itself, and if they did, it's hard to imagine that they would not trumpet that fact by designating such lenses as, for example, "mark II" versions.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 11, 2000.

Are you sure you are not talking about the 28-80 f/2.8-4 L vs. 28-70 f/2.8 L? I don't think there are 2 versions of 28-70 f/2.8L.

-- Chuck Fan (chaohui@msn.com), August 12, 2000.

I do not know if there have been two different versions, but B&H says that new stock of 28-70 2.8L will come with a leather pouch, while old stock comes with a hard case.

Jeremy Moore

ps thought you just might like to know, other than that I can't really help

-- Jeremy Moore (moore_photography@yahoo.com), August 12, 2000.


Chuck: Note that I did not state that there are two different versions of the 28-70, only that my 2nd copy (bought two years later than my first copy) came with the leather pouch and what I think is a different lens hood than that which came with my first copy. Further, I speculated that IF Canon had in fact further refined this lens, that Canon would hopefully publicize this by designated the lens' improved optics with, for example, a "mark II" or similar designation.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 12, 2000.

Sorry, I now see where my words are causing confusion: Instead of using the misleading term "version", I really should have used a term such "older vs. newer serial numbers (or production runs)". Again, sorry for any confusion I may have caused!..

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 12, 2000.


Thanks for the info.

Kurt, did you do any sort of test shots (bricks, etc.) with the first copy of the lens or was it obvious just from looking at regular shots? I am currently using the 24-85 and I am told that it is not up to par with the 50 f/1.4. My concern is that I don't have, IMHO, a really good lens like the 50 f/1.4 to use in comparison with the 28- 70. I believe that the 28-70 would be an improvement over the 24-85 no matter what and I am not sure that I would know if the 28-70 is as sharp as it should be, relative to a lens like the 50 f/1.4.

In any case I am going to make sure that I get a more recent production of the lens that comes with the updated hood and leather pouch and see what happens.

-- Jim Clifford (Jclifford345@earthlink.net), August 12, 2000.


My unhappiness stemmed from many regular, real-world shots (using Velvia or 100 ISO slide films, as well as a tripod in most circumstances), in which I felt my first copy seemed to suffer from rather pronounced "spherical aberration", in which there tended to be a noticable softening of the focus as I looked away from the center of many images, and this didn't improve much by stopping down to even f11. But like I said, my new 28-70 is quite sharp. I should also mention that I've used a good many EOS lenses, and this was the first and (so far) only time that I've encountered a problem with any of these lenses. If, like me, you prefer to use a protective front filter for your expensive lenses, I would suggest B+W Schneider multicoated filters (which I use), or Heliopan filters (which are reported to be as fine as the B+W products).

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 13, 2000.

Thanks for the additional information. It helps to know the specifics.

I do use B+W filters and plan to in the future. I don't know much about Heliopan filters but I'll look into them, especially if they are cheaper. I think that B+H is selling the 77mm Circular polarizer for around 175.00. Ouch.

-- Jim Clifford (Jclifford345@earthlink.net), August 13, 2000.


I'd like to share a cautionary tale with a happy ending:

About a year or so ago I was shooting at my childrens' school and was changing lenses and balancing my beefy 28-70L on my lap. Without warning, it rolled off (in super-slow motion!) onto the concrete sidewalk, lens mount first.

When my heart started beating again, I picked it up (the lens, not my heart) and noted that one of the three flanges (?) on the steel bayonet mount was bent from the impact such that I couldn't remount the lens. I took out my little needle-nose pliers and attempted to bend the flange back into place, and a 1/4 inch section snapped off in the pliers.

Again, after applying CPR to myself, I looked at it carefully and said "what the heck" (paraphrasing) and went ahead and fastened the lens back onto my EOS 5.

Unbelievably, it went right on, and worked fine.

I took the lens into a local Canon authorized service center and they said it'd cost almost $400 to repair. But the tech leaned over the counter and said, "does it still work?". To which I replied, "uhh, yeah." He said, "I wouldn't fix it then.

And I haven't. This was well over a year ago, and since then the lens has endured a two week photo safari to southern Africa and most recently a one week vacation into the rain forests of Costa Rica. And the image quality is every bit as stunning as before The Accident.

I guess you really do get what you pay for!

-- Steven Maller (steve@maller.com), August 15, 2000.


Jim: FWIW, I recently purchased a new B+W multicoated/"multi-resistant" circular polarizer from John at The Filter Connection" ($195.00, shipping included). Schneider apparently has plenty of these in-stock at their New York location, so I received my order in only one week.

Interestingly, if you read the recent B+W Schneider catalogues, they state that the nature of polarization makes multicoating unnecessary. I asked John about this, and after a brief chuckle, he stated his belief that B+W Schneider said this because they had not yet figured out a way to reliably multicoat polarizers. According to John, the technical obstacle centered around the fact that B+W's standard process for applying MC involves heating the filters, and this heat tended to melt the delicate polarizer foil that is sandwiched between the Schott glass. But, they recently developed a new, lower temperature MC process that solved this problem. However, John also stated his experience that one should treat these polarizers with extra care, since the multicoating produced by this lower temperature application process is actually not quite as "resistant" as B+W's regular MC/MR filters.

John also stated that B+W has improved their edge-sealing process for their circular polarizers, and that (therefore) they are no longer making the so-called "Kaesemann" polarizers.

Finally, I'll mention that I have looked at the catalogues from both B+W and Heliopan, and they are so startlingly similar in text and illustrations that I would have sworn they are actually owned by the same parent company. However, John stated to me that to the best of his knowledge, this is not the case. At any rate, their prices are very similar, but Heliopan fans claim that their brass mounts are a tad finer than B+W's.

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 15, 2000.



ERROR CORRECTION: I was mistaken when I said that the lens hood on my new 28-70 was not petal shaped--it is! Sorry for the error!

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 28, 2000.

I bought this lens about two years ago, with the petal hood and leather-like case. I ended up trading it for the ensuing reasons: 1. Zoom creep when pointed upwards (several sample I have tried, not just mine); 2. Construction was not very solid IMHO; 3. Optics wise was still inferior to prime lenses; 4. Not IF.

-- Paulo Bizarro (pbizarro@cggp.pt), August 29, 2000.

This lens is my most recent acquisition; I was really needing a zoom in this range to meet my photographic goals and changing style, so I have traded in my beloved 28 1.8 and 50 1.4 primes. Believe me, it was hard, but after an intensive one week trial period with a borrowed 28-70, I was convinced. Just as an example, I have photographed my brother in law wedding (just for fun, the official photographer was another person) using an EOS 50 and a 28-70L. One photographer (there were two of them) was using an EF28-105 and the other was using Nikkors.

My prints were noticeable sharper and with more punch (not surprising considering the 28-105, but the other guy was using 35 and 105 Nikkors). BTW, I used the Kodak Portra 160 VC, amazing film (the guys were using Superia 100).

My first impressions after using this lens for some time now are:

1. Though heavy, it balances nicely on the 1N with booster, and even on the 50 with the baterry pack. 2. Provides top notch results, adds versatility compared to primes. 3. The hood in my sample is a bit stiff to rotate when (un)mounting, but I take it as due to being a new lens.

So, if you want the best standard EF zoom lens, look no further. If you do not need to shoot Velvia or Kodachrome 25 without tripod, if you don't need to shoot at 1.4 in low light, this is the lens for you.

Now, this does not mean the 35 1.4 is not attractive...

-- Paulo Bizarro, March 17, 1999

-- kurt heintzelman (heintzelman.1@osu.edu), August 29, 2000.


Paul, is your change of heart on this lens based on the the now 2 years experience that you have with it or was your initial post (thanks Kurt for following up) very positive due to "new lens" excitement? I have read that there is virtually no zoom creep with this lens and while I don't like it when creep happens I don't shoot straight up enough for it to be too much of a concern.

As for the quality compared to prime lenses I am willing to give up a little to get the versatility of a zoom. However, I am not sure that it is an issue. From what I have read and heard the optical quality of this lens is superb. I am only concerned with the build quality insofar as image quality is concerned. I am worried that my lack of experience with L series lenses and their results will hurt my ability to determine if I have a lemon of a lens. I would hate to spend the money and not know that the images are not as sharp as they should be. My hope is that people would (and have) share any instances of problems they had so that I would be able have an idea what to look for. Was the "construction not very solid" comment based on the zoom creep or are there other things that make you think that?

I really appreciate your input and I hope that you will follow up.

-- Jim Clifford (Jclifford345@earthlink.net), August 30, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ