What would be the ideal choice lens for the elan 7 body? an every day kind of lens for portraits and landscapes. Pls. consider cost&value Thanks

-- shy (shy9@inter.net.il), July 27, 2001

Answers

Best choice for quality, convenience and value is clear:

EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5II USM

-It's a great all-round lens. -Good sharpness. I've taken some stunningly sharp images around Mt. Rainier with this lens stopped down to 8 or so, tripod-mounted, using Velvia. It may be a "consumer-grade" lens, but it is capable of very good performance. -Focusing ring does not rotate with zooming or focusing. -Has 7 rounded aperture blades for pleasing backgrounds on portraits. -Ring-type usm with (mechanical) FTM (full time manual focusing while in AF mode). This works smoothly and is very handy. -Focuses to a reasonably close 1:5 (gets close to 1:2 with the canon 250D close-up lens) -Reasonable price; also - uses 58 mm filters, which are also used on several other Canon lenses, so you'll leverage your investment in filters. (That's a main detraction of the 24-85 from a value point of view: it uses 67 mm filters, which are used nowhere else in Canon except the 80-200 f4 L lens.) -I'd get the new MkII version: it adds ring-type USM, FTM, and has 7 aperture blades (instead of 5 on the previous version).

http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/eflenses/ef28-105mm.html

Have fun!

-- Rod Nygaard (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), July 27, 2001.

I should add that I do use my Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5II USM on a Canon Elan 7E (which I also love, and love is not too strong a term for this camera.) The lens balances and handles well on the 7/7E body.

Besides the 24-85 (where filter size is the rub, plus costs $80 more than 28-105...but could be a good choice over 28-105 if you're going to do a lot more landscapes than portraits), the other main choice for a versatile zoom is the 28-135 IS: -costs roughly $200 more, but is value-priced for an IS lens.

-72 mm filters (more expensive than 58; -72mm also used on some other worthy lenses such as 20 f2.8 and 200 f2.8L These three lenses would make a nice outfit -- all at 72mm!)

-cost of battery drain if you use IS a lot. (Frequent use of IS will pretty much drive you to the BP-300 so you can use cheaper AA batteries -- roughly an additional $80.)

So... depending on budget constraints and how often you would use IS in actual shooting situations, the 28-135 IS could be a good choice and a good value. Depending on what your definition of value is, and what your shooting needs are any of these three lenses (28-105, 24-85, 28-135 IS) could be a good choice.

But, as I said in my first post, for a balance of performance, convenience and value I recommend the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5II USM.

I'm very happy with mine!

-- Rod Nygaard (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), July 27, 2001.

i second the vote for the 28-105. i am super pleased with mine.

-- peter bg (pbg333@hotmail.com), July 27, 2001.

Thanks for adding comments on the 28-135 IS, Rod. This lens should definately be considered along side the 28-105.

Shy - In general, you get what you pay for and need to decide what would suit your needs the best given your budget. Aside from the added focal length/versatility, the IS on the 28-135 will be useful in low-light situations where flash is not appropriate (weddings, shows, whatever). Also, the 28-135 was rated a little better by www.photo.com (a site tha rates optics of lenses).

Generally I agree with Rod, but I lean to the longer IS lens.

Happy shooting!

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oaisiol.com), July 28, 2001.

If I started it all over again, 50/1.4 for one lens; Or 28/1.8USM for landscape and general all around plus 85/1.8U for portrait and landscape.

-- George Zhang (george.zhang@syngenta.com), July 31, 2001.

I have the 24-85, and my father has the 28-105. Both are good lenses, and the answer purely depends on the range you want. Also, the 24-85 is more compact. The filter size is different, but that is not a problem to the majority of users, who will put a UV or Skylight on to protect the lens, and leave it at that (as I do). Also, a 28-90 is a possibility, but the quality is not up to the other two lenses mentioned. There are other third party standard lenses you could use, but these are not worth considering compared to the canon lenses.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), August 02, 2001.

I'd get the new MkII version: it adds ring-type USM, FTM, and has 7 aperture blades (instead of 5 on the previous version).

that's completely incorrect! the MKII version doesn't add ring-type USM, FTM, or the 7 aperature blades; those are features that were available with the original 28-105 as well. the only thing different on the II is the "leather-like" finish. They are optically, and mechnically the very same exact lens.

-- mariel lohninger (anavrin@mailandnews.com), August 07, 2001.

Well...not incorrect :)

Canon europa still has full specs for both lenses

http://www.canon-europa.com/products/products.html

The Mark I USM did/does indeed have USM with FTM; however, the Mark I has 5 aperture blades while the Mark II has 7. In addition to the fresh exterior finish the Mark II boasts a new wide zoom ring.

See also

http://www.usa.canon.com/camcambin/cameras/eflenses/ef28-105mmfea.html

But the point made that the 28-105 Mk I has USM with FTM is a good one; so getting a Mark I used (or a new Mark I on closeout) could be a good option. (Personally I prefer the Mark II).

-- Rod Nygaard (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), August 14, 2001.

Meant to say not completely incorrect, but my editing marks to show italics on completely got "completely" edited out :)

-- Rod Nygaard (rod.nygaard@boeing.com), August 14, 2001.

If you haven't bought yet, I'd definitely spend the extra money to get the 28-135 AF-IS (and I did). As for the extra "battery drain" for using IS, I have used one EOS 7e (with 28-135 AF-IS) for four months and about 30 rolls of 36, still on original batteries, and another EOS 7e (with 100-400 AF-IS) for three months and about 40 rolls of 36, and just replaced the batteries two rolls ago. I don't consider that to be excessive battery drain. Finally, a review comparing the Canon 100-400 AF-IS with the Nikon 80-400 VR (Popular Photography, Sept 2001, pg 62 et seq) states their experience showed the IS increased battery drain about 20% over non-IS. I.e., battery drain is not that significantly different for the greatly added benefits of image stabilization.

-- Bruce Craig (birdphotographique@yahoo.com), August 23, 2001.