lightweight and quite inexpensive useful zoom range

Cheaply built. Speed very slow. Non-USM means slowish auto-focus. Lousy manual focus ring. Front ring rotates during focus making polarizing filter harder to use. Image quality very mediocre.

This lens came with the ElanII that I got three years ago for trading in a whole whack of Minolta manual focus gear (MD-11 body, MD-28f2, MD-50f1.7, MD-85f2, a couple of Tokina zooms, ...). It''s the only lens I have, so I''ve used it for everything, which is mostly outdoor general, travel, family snaps, ... My first use of this lens (and camera) was a six week trip to Europe resulting in about 200 shots. Having this zoom range is quite useful for things like traveling as you don''t want either a big heavy lens or a whole bunch of primes to weigh you down. However, I''ve found that I''ve occasionally wanted more range - especially longer. As far as image quality is concerned, pretty much every shot was a disappointment - I wished I had kept my Minolta gear. Since then I haven''t seen any evidence that it wasn''t the lens''s fault, as I find just about all my shots are rather ordinary and lackluster. It''s hard to pick exactly what''s bad as there''s an overall lack of sharpness, clarity, saturation, contrast, brilliance, vibrancy, ... that just leaves me feeling very ho-hum about the resulting pictures. Add to that the cheap build quality, slow speed (3.5-5.6!), slowish autofocus (no USM), lack of decent manual focus ring, and rotating front element during focus, and you''ve got a lens that is nothing short of a complete waste of money for even the mildly serious. The slow speed is especially bad. At 28mm the f3.5 is acceptable, but the f5.6 at 80mm is terrible, and it means that it''s between 4 and 4.5 in the middle (35-50mm) where it will be used the most - OUCH!!!!! To be fair though, this lens is actually OK, but that''s all. It''s probably better than a high-end point-and-shoot, but just barely. If you are looking for the kind of quality that a good SLR system can deliver (as opposed to point-and-shoots), this lens will likely be a big disappointment for you as it was for me. If this is your first SLR lens and you are on a budget (and are buying a low-end EOS), or you are only ever going to use this like you would a point-and-shoot, you''ll probably be happy. But even then I''d recommend the 28-105 if you have the extra money or else just getting the 50mmf1.8 which is even cheaper but has quite good image quality. For me, I''m giving up on it. I''m tired of investing valuable time and money taking photos only to be disappointed by the re

Similar Products Used:

Minolta MD-28mm f2.0 Minolta MD-50mm f1.7 Minolta MD-85mm f2.0 Tokina ATX 28-85mm f3.5-4

Small.

None

Very BAD lens even for a beginner. The sharpness and color never satisfied me. Almost all the time I use Soligor 70-300, which makes better pictures. Try 50 f1.8, you''ll never need zoom.

Customer Service

NO

Similar Products Used:

None

light weight

sharpness, colors

Got this lense with my eos 300 and used it for 6 months. I never was satisfied with the sharpness and the color of my photos then I bought the Sigma 28 - 135 and improved my the quality of my pictures by 100 %.

Customer Service

never used

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 28 - 135

Inexpensive. Lightweight. Easy to use.

Cheap build quality. Plastic mount. Manual focus ring is odd. Lens elements are badly protected from the elements. Lots of flare.

This lens really is kinda crappy. It does perform adequately for its price point, but as you progress in photographic prowess, this lens will leave you wanting much, much more. This is the stock lens on the Rebel 2000 my mother just got, and the setup is very lightweight. It probably will serve her well because she is too new to the craft to notice the lack of perfect image quality. It also is not very well controlled for flare and a lens hood is very advisable even for side light when the sun is not directly in the frame. The build quality leaves much to be desired, but for a basic amateur lens, what more should one expect.

Customer Service

Excellent.

Similar Products Used:

28-135mm IS, many other Canon lenses

Price, weight, its cheap enough so I'll do things with it I would be worried about with another lens.

Manuel focusing is a pain. Feels cheap. Lack of sharpness is main complaint (especially wide open), but I guess you get what you pay for. I did a formal test of sharpness against two Canon prime lenses. I found that quantitatively, the lens was nearly as sharp stopped down, but subjectively the picture quality just isn't there. Limited contrast probably has something to do with it.

Good for the money, but get something else if you really want or need sharp images.

Customer Service

none needed

Similar Products Used:

Full range of Canon lenses.

Price. Very sharp especially stopped down.

Slow. Range can be a little restrictive. Average construction.
Not USM but it's not really as big a deal as everyone makes out of it (Even Nikon has only just started making USM-equivalent focusing motors and their users haven't suffered too much in the past)

No matter how much you try, you can not get L glass quality from a $200 lens. But for a $200 zoom this lens performs above what should be expected. The EF28-80 a good beginner lens and allows you to learn the ropes until you can afford better lenses. It is quite sharp and image deterioration only starts to be a problem as enlargements get bigger (8X10+). At 4X6 (probably well over 98% of most people's prints) lack of sharpness is not really an issue. I bought it primarily as a 'throw around' lens, ie a lens you can take away on holiday etc without the fear of damaging an expensive piece of glass. For me it serves this purpose ideally. The plastic construction may not have the strength of an L but I tend not to use lenses as shotputs either so I guess that's negligable. It is solid enough for most users.
My only real gripe is that I wish the lens was a little faster. f5.6 at 80mm tends to be a little restrictive, especially in poorly lit areas.

Similar Products Used:

None

Price, weight

Plastic mount, not the best pictures

It's a cheap lens, but for the beginner it's fine. Toss this lens on the Eos Rebel 2000 you have a great camera that weights less than a pound. Can't complain about that. I got this lens with my camera and can't complain. I did replace it within a year of buying my camera.

Customer Service

N/A

Similar Products Used:

50mm, 28-105mm USM, 75-300mm USM

Price, Zoom Range

Plastic mount

For the price, you can't get a better lens from other manufacturers. If Canon is willing to put their name on it, can't be that bad. I agree with the other writer that at 50mm F8/11, the lens is above average. But at other area, is average. Will recommand to anyone with a budget.

Customer Service

None

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 24-120, or other 28-80 (70) lens

great camera for close up extreme sports, is lightweight and is fast and so easy to use.

mount is plastic and thats it.

this is a great lens for all kinds of close ups and great for beginners or casual photographers, are cheap i bought them with a elan 2. it would have been better if they were a little bit more wider. for close up sports.

Customer Service

didnt use it yet

Similar Products Used:

None

Price, seems solid, takes reasonably sharp pictures, light.

Plastic mount, 28-80 can be restricting (but not usually), no USM (but that's not as bad as some people say)

I got this lens for $75 here in Seattle. It's a good lens for the price. I didn't buy it expecting L series performance. I bought it because it was a good deal. If you can find one for cheap then get it. It's a good little lens.

Customer Service

Haven't used it.

Similar Products Used:

None