Domke F-802 Review

I love my Domke F-6, but as I've been expanding my kit and preparing to offer my services as a photographer, I've recognized that it's not going to be the best solution for bringing a large kit to a shoot. I don't think it would fit two bodies, a 70-200mm zoom and another medium-sized lens or two, plus lighting gear. Additionally, while I personally like the Ruggedwear finish, I wanted something a bit more business casual, so to speak. I'm still completely happy with my F-6 and wanted to stick with Domke, so I ended up getting the Domke F-802 Reporter's Satchel, a large satchel-style bag, in the normal Sand finish. (Because I'm carrying so much in this bag, I also picked up the Domke Shoulder Pad, which helps keep the weight from getting painful -- highly recommended, and you'll see it in the pictures, but it doesn't come with the bag.)

Domke calls the F-802 a "Reporter's Satchel", but it works quite well as a camera bag. Like all their F-series bags, it's made of a durable but flexible cotton canvas. I was tempted to get one of the J-series satchels, which are made of black ballistic nylon, but there's no J-802 that I can find, and I wanted the larger size more than the different material. I was also considering the F-811 or F-812, which are designed to carry a laptop and a DSLR system, but I couldn't find many reviews of them, and they're about twice as expensive -- I don't plan on needing to transport my laptop to shoots very often, so I ruled them out.

I also could have gotten an F-2, or even an F-1X, but I decided that I wanted a satchel instead of a duffel bag. For one thing, it's less conspicuous: the F-802 could be any large messenger bag. Living and working around Boston, carrying an obvious camera bag would also potentially make me look like a tourist or a student, and thieves are more likely to see them as a target. A satchel might suggest a laptop, but every bag's obviously going to carry something, and I think "maybe a laptop?" is a better risk than "definitely a camera". Not that the F-2 looks a lot like a camera bag, of course.

The slimmer profile of the satchels is also a draw. It keeps more of the gear closer to my body, so there's less a risk of carelessly smacking into something (or someone) because it's sticking out. It does make the F-802 harder to work out of, since the bag is deeper, but I suspect it's just a matter of getting used to a deep space instead of a broad one. On the other hand, I do a lot of shooting bending or even laying down, and I'd be worried about things falling out if it tipped over on the ground with the flap open -- something a duffel wouldn't do.

The bag is built really well. There are no loose threads anywhere, and all the materials are high quality. The strap runs down along the sides and is sewn to the bottom of the bag, so the weight is distributed over the entire bag, and not just on a few square inches at the top. It also has a rubber tread sewn into it, which keeps it secure on your shoulder. The top flap has a handle on it, made of the same thick cotton material as the strap, with a metal reinforcement underneath. I've actually heard of this support wearing through the bag after a few years, but I have no idea if the problem is widespread or not. The clip that secures the flap is very strong, and takes some work to open; I expect it'll ease up in time, but frankly I like that it's not going to pop open too easily.

On the outside, there's a large but thin pocket on the back, which I stick lens caps into while I'm shooting. There are also two zippered front pockets (heavy YKK zippers), large enough for business cards, small notepads, and other small-ish items you want easy access to.

Inside is a lot of storage space. There are two velcroed front pockets, each large enough to carry a Super Clamp and umbrella adapter. Or, though it's a little tight, a 40D with battery grip (and no lens, of course). The velcro patches on these pockets are very large, about the size of a business card, so it's easy to shut them securely. Also, the Domke logo is on the flap of one of these, meaning it's not visible when the main flap is closed -- another way the F-802 avoids standing out as a camera bag. (Though let's be honest: any thief who'd know Domke is a camera bag maker could probably recognize the F-802.)

There's a second thin pocket inside, which could hold a binder or large notepad; I keep some sample 4"x6" prints in here, and would use it for any shoot-related paperwork. Between this and the four pockets, you're probably going to have room for all the cables, filters, spare batteries and other miscellaneous accessories you need for whatever system you're carrying.

The main compartment is sized for a pretty good work system. Its dimension are 14.5"x12"x3", which doesn't account for the natural flex of the fabric. That's the big advantage of Domke bags: they expand or collapse around what they're carrying, so it keeps its balance and comfort whether its packed full or is half empty. The bottom and sides are lightly padded, just enough for the bag to keep its shape empty. It's not enough to protect the contents in case of a serious accident, but if you're getting a Domke, this shouldn't come as a surprise: they're flexible, fast bags that are easy to use, but ultimately you are its best protection from accidents.

One nice detail: the interior padding is olive green, and the unpadded surfaces are of the same material as the exterior (really, they are the exterior), so unless you have a black bag, it's easy to see exactly what's at the bottom of the bag.

Since the F-802 is marketed as a reporter's satchel, it doesn't include any inserts to keep the main compartment organized. I use the Domke FA-230 3 Compartment Insert. With this setup, I can carry the 40D with 70-200mm f/4L IS attached (hood reversed) in one compartment, the old EOS A2 (I haven't gotten a second digital body yet, but wanted to see how one will fit) with 17-40mm f/4L on the other end, and the 100mm f/2.8 Macro in the middle. The 100mm Macro is about as large as will fit between the two main lenses. There's still room on either end of the insert for a flash; I was able to fit the 430EX II and a Vivitar 285HV in, barely, but the Viv is much bulkier than most modern flashes. With these two bodies, three mid-sized lenses, and two flashes, I was still able to fit a 24' TTL cord from FlashZebra in the main compartment. I can also fit the cameras in with their grips attached, though it's a tight fit -- though the A2 is a film camera with a small vertical grip, not a bulkier motor drive or battery grip, and I don't know if a second one of those would fit.

The bodies, with or without grip, are pressed right next to each other like this. I took the side padding out of the FA-230, and will probably reuse it as a divider to keep them from rubbing. Everything else is secure. On that note, I can feel the contents of the bag against my side as I'm carrying it, and I'll probably add a bit of that padding between the insert and the back of the bag for comfort.

With all this gear packed, the main flap still shuts easily, since the clasp comes up between the front two cargo pockets. The sides of the compartment are completely covered, so I'm not worried about rain or snow getting in, like I was with the F-6. The canvas finish is probably less water-resistant than the Ruggedwear, but canvas is pretty good at keeping the contents dry, and there's multiple layers of it around the electronic stuff in the main compartment.

All in all, I'm as happy with the F-802 as I am with the F-6. I'm still using the F-6 when I'm out on a photo walk, especially doing macro work with bugs, where I don't need to carry my entire work kit with me. For carrying everything though, I'm very happy with the F-802. If in the future I ever have more gear than this bag can carry, I don't think I would be using a single bag for it.

By the way: Purchases made through the links provided here support this site and my photography. Please be sure that I stand by my recommendations, and only ever suggest items that I would spend my own money on.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Review

Making myself available as a photographer has meant investing in new gear. Some things I need to fill in certain gaps, like focal lengths that my 50mm and 100mm macro don't cover, and others to provide durability (or at least redundancy) that I don't currently have. It's expensive, but necessary, and as far as business start-up costs go, I think I have it pretty easy, since I don't need to worry about real estate or vehicles or anything scary-expensive like that.

The first big upgrade is the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM, a wide-angle zoom. I decided to get this lens first for a couple of reasons: I don't have anything in that focal range, it's the cheapest of the lens/camera upgrades I want to make, and I can use it as a wide-standard zoom on my 40D (I think I have to put off an upgrade to the 5D II until last).

This is my first L lens, and it's pretty clearly in a different class than the other lenses I have. Rather than give the same review focusing on technical details that you can find everywhere else on the internet, I'd like to pass over the image quality and instead talk about my first experience using it on a crop body.

It feels solid in the hand, though it's not a massive lens. It balances very well with the 40D, and I imagine it would with the heavier bodies, too. The front element is huge -- it has a 77mm filter diameter while being only 97mm long -- and dark. You can see down into the body of my other lenses, this one has more of a "black box" appearance to it. I was surprised at the slight resistance and muffled click when I mounted it for the first time, until I realized that it was due to the rubber o-ring that seals the mount against water and dust.

The USM autofocus is very snappy, nearly silent, and from what I've seen so far, pretty accurate. The zoom ring and focus ring are both smooth and quiet, without the dry scratchy sound of inexpensive lenses. I will say that I've never had a zoom lens that doesn't change length while zooming, and that was a bit of a surprise, being one of the little details that had slipped my mind. It also keeps an f/4 aperture through the zoom range, as opposed to others that drop a full stop after zooming in by 1mm from wide open.

I was aware of something with this lens that I've never consciously felt before: that this is a piece of equipment that my imagery deserves, and on the flip side, it is not one that I can hide behind when a shot doesn't come out how I'd wanted. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT one to mistake quality gear for quality photography. But holding it in my hand for the first time, that was my gut response. It's definitely true, of course, but it's also true of my 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, and probably even the 50mm f/1.8 II -- the difference is in the build quality and cosmetic design, and I have no doubt that this is exactly the impression Canon wants to give.

We had some reasonable weather the day after I got the lens, so I went out for a photowalk -- no flash, no bag, just the 17-40mm on the 40D. With the crop factor, it's acting as a 28-64mm zoom, which for me is a great focal length. It's funny that 95% of the time I've been shooting with a prime between 50mm and 100mm (both telephoto on the 40D), but I really connect with the wide/standard perspective. I like having that depth without necessarily going ultrawide.

As I said, I don't want to get too deep into the image quality side of it (this lens has been around for years and I doubt I could say anything original there) but I do think it's important to say that my initial impression, that this is a lens my images deserve, stands up once I was actually looking at the results. I would comfortable printing a 100% crop from this lens. Color is great, detail is great, contrast is great. This is a lens whose quality you can see by looking through the camera's viewfinder.

I think what I was really feeling when I pulled the lens out of its box was a sense of confidence: I can rely on this lens. It's a sense that I don't have to baby it. It's not fragile, it's not plastic, and I'm not worried that some delicate mechanism inside is about to snap if I swing it around too quickly. Obviously I'm going to be careful with it, but I don't have the nagging voice in the back of my mind that's monitoring how I'm handling it while I'm shooting. Having actually shot a bit with it, I still feel the same, and the images I'm getting from it back that up.

That's one less distraction, and to me it's the most important reason for getting pro-grade gear: if I'm going to book half my day (and possibly half of someone else's day too) to a shoot out on location, I need to have confidence that my gear won't let me down in any way. I also need to know that it's not going to spontaneously die the day after the warranty expires. That peace of mind is what you're really paying for with L glass.

WhiBal and color temperature

I picked up a WhiBal color balance card and, though I haven't had the chance to do any really critical (or even really interesting) photography the past few weeks, it's already given me great results with some easy, casual shots. White balance is one of those subtle things that's hard to get right, but really stands out when it's wrong. Fairly or not, when I'm looking a photographer's work, it's the first thing that gives me an impression of their technical skill.

The card is a small, neutral piece of plastic that you use to determine an accurate white balance, either with a custom white balance before shooting, or as a batch setting in post-production. It comes in several sizes; I got one about the size of a business card, because I do a lot of macro and wanted a smallish one, but for larger scenes Amazon carries a 3.5"x6" Studio size, and there's a wider variety directly from the manufacturer. It comes with a stand, a lanyard, and a thin, cheap-feeling case; they also make a really small one that attaches to your keychain. One nice aspect of the card is that the color comes from the material, not a printed surface, so any scratches won't affect its effectiveness. There's a sticker on one side that's used for setting white and black points in post, and it has an autofocus target as well.

The WhiBal looks like a typical Kodak gray card used for exposure (in that both are gray rectangles), but the two are used for different purposes. A gray card has a standard 18% reflectivity, so your camera's light meter gives you a consistent exposure with them. But they're not entirely neutral in color, and they aren't even the same color in different types of light -- so using a gray card for white balance will give you the wrong color temperature, and it won't even be a predictable amount of wrong in different situations. On the other hand, the WhiBal isn't 18% gray, and using it for exposure will be a bit off; I'm not sure by how much, or how consistently, but I'll bet you could experiment with exposure compensation to meter off the white and black sticker.

In a RAW workflow, you use the WhiBal by placing it in the scene you're shooting, adjust the angle so you don't see any glare on the stickers, and taking a shot of it. Then you go on shooting as normal. If the lighting conditions change, take another shot. Once you're in post-production, you can use the "click white balance" tool of your digital darkroom on the card, and then copy that setting across all the images in those lighting conditions. All the software I've used has a batch-copy tool to make this simple. It's supremely easy and consistent -- it takes about five seconds to shoot the card, and another five to set the entire shoot's white balance.

By the way, in case you're interested, I've measured the color temperature of my Vivitar 285HV flash as 5750 degrees, with a tint of -2 in LR. My 40D's on-camera flash measures 6400 degrees, with no tint adjustment.

The image of the robin above was balanced using the WhiBal card, and for the photography I do -- which is very nature and animal oriented -- it's a great example of the card's impact. Auto white balance was totally off. The Daylight setting I was shooting in was just slightly too warm, and like many images I've taken in the fall and winter, the dried leaves just looked subtly wrong. It's not terribly visible in the comparison image, but it's something that's bothered me for a long time, and I picked this specific image because the WhiBal's setting made the colors of the dead foliage feel "right" for the first time.

So the verdict is good. It's easy to use, tremendously helpful, and not terribly expensive, even for a low-budget photographer like myself. I wish I'd gotten one earlier.

Domke F-6 Ruggedwear review

I don't have a huge camera kit, so when I came to the conclusion recently that I needed a better way of transporting my gear than an old messenger bag with a widening hole in one of the seams, I opted for the modestly-sized Domke F-6 Little Bit Smaller Ruggedwear Bag. The practical design caught my eye, and so did the simple, unassuming appearance -- it's nice to look at, but it doesn't draw attention to itself. The "I am not a camera bag" bags may not look like neoprene lunchboxes with $4000 worth of gear in them, but people are still going to notice them. I guess you could say the F-6 is more classy than stylish.

Now, I have to admit, I can compare the Ruggedwear model to the regular Domke F-6 Little Bit Smaller Bag because I was a bit dumb when I bought it. I ordered the plain F-6 (black, since olive was out of stock) to help me schlep my stuff back home from New York, where I was visiting family for Thanksgiving. Unfortunately, I had the bag shipped to my home in Boston, where it was not going to do me much good, and in the half-hour it took me to realize this, Amazon had already prepared it for shipping. So I had to order a second bag, and thought again about spending the extra money on the Ruggedwear model. The two bags are identical, except for the color and finish, so most of this review applies to both.

The "Ruggedwear" material is a cotton canvas treated with paraffin wax for water resistance. It's the same as their "Waxwear" treated bags, which I believe were only offered as a limited run. It's a dark brown color, and looks in photos like it would have a soft, suede-like feel to it, but it's a tough, flexible fabric to the touch. Not that it's abrasive at all; it's quite smooth, and there's no oily smell or residue. The logo is a subtle tan color on the front; the black canvas F-6 has a bright red logo, which frankly I don't like at all.

I've heard that normal canvas bags tend to shed small fibers as they age, which can get on DSLR sensors. The waxwear bags are so new, I don't know if they've been around long enough to tell whether they suffer from this problem or not.

Water beads on the surface, but it's not watertight -- the sides near the strap rings are a bit exposed, and I would expect some water to get in if you're caught in a driving rain. Folding the sides of the top down after you close it will nearly eliminate the gap, but it won't quite do this on its own. I'm not sure how much water the bag will wick off of the gear its carrying, but probably less than a normal canvas Domke. From what I hear, even the normal Domkes are at least a little water resistant as well. I hope you'll forgive me for not doing an exhaustive test comparing the two, but I think if absolute waterproofing is a high priority for you, you're looking at a whole different class of bags anyway.

The F-6 is built well, and feels like a heavy-duty camera bag. There's no padding, except for the bottom and the insert, so the lenses are pretty well protected, and they're the most fragile bits anyway. The insert has four sections, and the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM macro lens (non-L) with reversed hood fits exactly in one to give you an idea of the size. There's a zippered pocket on the underside of the top, and on the front. The clips that close the bag are amazingly strong, and take some effort to open, which I like. The strap has a pair of rubber treads along the underside, for traction on your shoulder, and adjusts easily to a comfortable length. It also has a removable hand strap.

I can fit a lot of stuff in this bag: a 40D with battery grip, the 100mm macro, the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, a Helios 44-2, an old K-mount 135mm f/2.8, Vivitar flash, short off-camera cord, Cactus radio triggers, battery and charger, circular polarizer filter, a baggy with flash gels, some spare batteries, lens pen, the 40D's battery and charger, a case of business cards, and a mini-tripod. With this load, the bag is still very comfortable to carry. It's perfectly balanced, and doesn't tip forwards or backwards when you pick it up. It's incredibly easy to access the gear you're carrying; the balance is not affected by whether the top is closed or open, and it's simple to just grab what you want. There's no need to unsling the bag and unpack everything just to get a different lens or filter.

This is a great bag for carrying around a modest kit. If I had more big gear to haul, it wouldn't be able to carry everything, but it's not meant for the role of "whole studio on your back" anyway. I'm a big fan of carrying minimal amounts of stuff, and this is an ideal walkaround bag, or even storage bag for medium-sized kits. There's not much room for me to grow into this bag, but I'll definitely pick up a Domke 700-02A F-2 Bag (Brown Waxwear Finish) once I have the need.

As for the Ruggedwear vs. normal canvas, I'm glad I spent the extra money. I think I'd like the olive or sand color better than the black, but I do really love the weathered brown color of the waxed canvas. And I shoot in damp and drippy environments often enough that the extra touch of protection is probably going to be useful.

Update: One month later, I still love the bag, and I'm no longer concerned about the possibility of gaps along the side of the lid.  This weekend I brought my gear with me to work, in a commute that involved, I kid you not, a ~1 mile walk through blizzard conditions each way.  Despite the cakes of snow I had to brush off the lid before I could get to my camera once I got indoors, everything in the bag was perfectly dry.

Update 2: I've found that removing the padding from the sides of the insert lets the bag collapse in a bit better when it's partially empty.

By the way: Purchases made through the links provided here support this site and my photography. Please be sure that I stand by my recommendations, and only ever suggest items that I would spend my own money on.

Domke F-6 Little Bit Smaller Ruggedwear Bag
Domke F-6 Little Bit Smaller Bag (Olive)
Domke 700-02A F-2 Bag (Brown Waxwear Finish)

Helios-44-2

I picked up a Helios-44-2 58mm f/2 lens a week or two ago. It's a lens with an interesting history: when the USSR got their half of Berlin after the end of World War II, they discovered that they were suddenly in possession of a factory that produced Zeiss lenses, one of the masters of the field. [edit: removed some mis-history]

The Helios-44 line is a clone of the Zeiss Biotar lens, and while it's probably not optically identical, it has the advantage of being one of the most mass-produced of any lens throughout history, which means it's cheap and plentiful. I got mine for $12 plus shipping, and it came with a (non-functional) Zenit-E camera to boot. Most of the Helios-44 lenses have the common M42 screw-mount, and adapters that allow you to mount these lenses on Canon EOS cameras are pretty cheap.

So I stuck it on my 40D.

It's a manual lens. This means that you have to set the camera to aperture priority or to full manual mode, and then set the aperture ring on the front of the lens. It's also a preset lens, which means there's a second aperture ring that slides the aperture from wide-open to whatever the aperture is set to -- this is because the viewfinder darkens as you stop down, so it's handy to focus wide open, then quickly slide the aperture down before you take the photo. Modern cameras do this for you, but the Helios is not so modern.

I do find that my 40D's metering is a bit off through this lens. Setting the exposure compensation to +1 helps, and I might try another stop or two higher just to push the histogram further. Focusing is a little tricky and I haven't mastered it yet. I might pick up the manual focusing viewfinder screen for the 40D, since I do a lot of that anyway, especially with ring USM lenses.

I've read that this lens is supposed to be pretty sharp after f/5.8 or so. I'm not really finding that. It could be that my copy is off a bit (quality control on the Soviet lenses was not that consistent), or it could be that people mean it's relatively sharp compared to other lenses of its era, but I find there's a subtle softness to it. This doesn't bother me. I do a lot of plant photography, and for this, it gives some very interesting results.

The color rendition (especially green) is fantastic. Subdued, but saturated. The bokeh, too, is amazing. It's very smooth and fluid, and the transition from focus to bokeh looks great. It's certainly different than my Canon lenses, and I quite like it. The lens is infamous for a strange distortion that appears when stopped down a bit: distant bokeh becomes distorted in a swirly, almost fisheye fashion. It's not displeasing, though it can be surprising or distracting if the photographer doesn't take it into account while making the image. It's definitely interesting -- a good example is the photo of Japanese maple.

I like this lens a lot. For the money, it's a lot of fun, and it's providing some really great images.

More 40D thoughts

I've been using the 40D for a couple weeks now, and taken about a thousand shots with it, doing nearly all my usual sorts of images. I have not yet done any studio macro yet, mostly for lack of small interesting things that I haven't already shot, and because I haven't picked up a remote shutter release yet. (I'd made one for my Rebel XT, but they don't take the same type of jack.)

As I've mentioned before, I'm not really interested in doing a full review of the 40D. That's been done. This is more about my personal experience moving from the entry level Rebel/xxxD line to the middle-weight "prosumer" xxD line. You may still have an early Rebel model and the 40D is still a great, available camera, so it's possible you may be considering the same upgrade. Otherwise, some of the later Rebels have a few of the 40D's features, like Live View and a more advanced processor, but they certainly don't have the same handling.

Physically, the 40D is easier for me to use than the XT. It's a bit larger and heavier, but I don't find it more tiring to use. The opposite is actually the case. With the XT, unless I was using a really lightweight lens like the 50mm f/1.8, the camera becomes front heavy and it's harder to keep the camera steady. I found the 40D's extra weight means the center of balance is much closer to where I'm holding the camera, especially with the 100mm Macro.

There are more buttons and dials than you find on the Rebel line. It took a few days to get used to the increased access I had to various settings, but it's not a difficult learning curve, and it speeds things up considerably. For example, in full manual mode, the XT requires you to hold down a button as you turn the control dial to change the aperture. The 40D has a second control dial on the back for that -- and in aperture or shutter priority mode, that dial can control the exposure compensation, a setting that required drilling down in the system menu on the Rebel XT. The secondary LCD panel is on the top of the 40D and provides a lot more information than the XT's, which is basically just a rehash of the info provided in the viewfinder.

One of those extra buttons is a dedicated AF-ON button. Both cameras can be set to use a rear button to control the autofocus, but the Rebel XT has to use its exposure lock button for this. It took some time to get used to the placement of the AF-ON on the 40D, since my thumb was used to going to the second button from the end, but having both AF-ON and exposure locking available is quite useful.

The viewfinder uses a prism, rather than mirrors, and is noticably brighter and larger than the XT's. It has a faster buffer and shoots about twice as many frames per second -- the XT can take about 3 shots a second, and the 40D takes a little over 6. With a reasonably fast CF card and shutter speed, I'm now able to fire off a burst of 20 consecutive RAW format images within about three seconds before the buffer fills. The shutter button is actually so sensative in comparison that I've taken quite a few double shots by accident, where I kept the button down for the fraction of a second it took for the camera to take a second shot.

I'm tremendously happy with the upgrade. I'd felt that I'd come up against the limits of what I could do with the XT in a few areas, and while I was perfectly happy with the photography I was doing with it, the 40D just makes it easier to do as well. The main benefit that I expect to see, and still have not really tested, is the ability to precisely focus with Live View, and I'll be doing that this week.

Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Mark 1.5 review

The lens I mentioned in the earlier Tamron 28-105mm review came, and I've been playing with it for the past couple days. It's a Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 USM (the same focal length as the Tamron, hence the seller's understandable mistake), an inexpensive lens with a rather confusing history.

There are three versions of this lens. They're mostly identical: the same focal range and optics, with a ring-type ultrasonic motor (the best kind Canon offers), a metal mount, and a focus distance window.

The aperture of the Mark 1 has five blades, giving a pentagonal shape to out-of-focus highlights. At some point, Canon upgrade it to a seven-blade aperture, but didn't consider this important enough to call it a Mark 2. I think of it as a Mark 1.5. You can tell the difference between the two by looking at the lens barrel: the Mark 1 has a flower, Canon's macro symbol, printed on it next to the focus ring, while the 1.5 has the word 'macro' written out.

The Mark 2 is basically identical to the Mark 1.5, except for some slight cosmetic redesigns. Internally, nothing was changed. This version is still on the market; the first two are only available used.

All three have the same optics, so except for the shape of the bokeh, there's no major difference in image quality between them. I personally think this is important enough to spring for the Mark 1.5 (as I did) or 2; i.e., the cheapest one you can find that doesn't have the flower symbol.

Adding to the confusion is the fact that Canon also makes a 28-105mm f/4-5.6 lens. Besides being slower, this lens does not have a reputation for being worth the money. Be sure to look at the maximum aperture if you're shopping for this lens.

Build quality is quite good. The lens is pretty light, weighing in at under a pound, and it feels quite natural and balanced on my Rebel XT. The metal mount and focus distance window are both nice touches, though neither one would be a deal-breaker or maker for me. The focus window has infrared markings for 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 105mm.

I'm impressed with the autofocus, which is whisper quiet (I love ring USM), fast, and accurate. I find myself trusting it more than I do with the EF 50mm f/1.8 II or my EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM.

The manual focus and zoom rings are majorly improved over the two kit lenses I have, which feel like scraping plastic and grinding gears to use. The manual focus ring is not as wide or as smooth to use as the 100mm macro, but that's not surprising -- a macro lens lives or dies by its ability to manual focus.

Speaking of macro, this lens technically has 'macro' in its features, but only in the sense that its minimum focus distance is 1.6 feet. It's not a true 1:1 or even 1:2 macro lens.

This lens lens, like the Tamron, isn't the sharpest around, but it's not nearly as soft, either. At wide angles, you do see some barrel distortion. Contrast, and bokeh are good (those seven aperture blades are worth it), and as far as I can tell color is good, though it's hard to really put that to the test in February. I've seen some mild chromatic aberration but it's not terrible.

100% crop of 105mm at f/9.0

100% crop of 105mm at f/4.5

Definitely go back and compare those with the Tamron sample crops (105mm at f/9.0 and f/2.8). To my eyes, the Canon is soft but usable wide open, even if it's not as crystal-sharp stopped down.

I've really enjoyed playing with this lens so far. It's not a lens you'd confuse for professional L glass, but for $150-$250 you wouldn't expect to, and the light weight, decently fast aperture, quality build, and respectable image quality make it a fantastic walkaround lens. If you're planning to buy a new Mark 2 version of this lens and found this review useful, please consider supporting this site by purchasing it at Amazon through the link here.

Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 thoughts

Due to a little mix-up with an eBay purchase, I had the chance to play around with the Tamron 28-105mm f/2.8 LD Aspherical (IF). A heck of a name. I only had a few minutes with this lens before bringing it back to the post office, but I did take a few test shots before I sent it back.

I knew it wasn't the lens I'd purchased before I'd gotten it out of the bubble wrap, because the the lens is quite large (it takes 82mm filters), and weighs about two pounds. It's an older model lens from the mid-90s, and is no longer produced by Tamron. The build quality seemed quite decent. I didn't put the autofocus to the test, but compared to say the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II, it was fairly quiet.

I didn't have it long enough to really test out the color or contrast, but in that sense it seemed decent enough. There was some barrel distortion when zoomed out, as you'd expect. The f/2.8 constant aperture seems nice in theory, but it was so amazingly soft wide open that I don't know if I'd ever want to use it below f/9 or so. It was much more impressive closed down.

100% crop of 105mm at f/9.0

100% crop of 105mm at f/2.8

For me, the biggest issue was the size of the lens. On my lightweight Rebel XT, it was ridiculously front-heavy. I can't imagine wanting to use this as a walk-around lens. I did get the overall sense that, if I had longer to play with it, I'd have liked the results of narrow-aperture work -- I could see myself using it for landscapes -- but the short time it was in my hands didn't make me fall in love with it.