jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) (01/15/85)
I would recommend against buying a Canon 35-105 mm f3.5. Many people make the same lense for much less money, Tokina to name just one. Abe's of Maine is selling a 35-135 mm lense for just $119. It is a better lense cause it has 30 mm more range and is cheaper. Jeff
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (01/19/85)
In article <215@oblio.UUCP> jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) writes: >I would recommend against buying a Canon 35-105 mm f3.5. Many people >make the same lense for much less money, Tokina to name just one. >Abe's of Maine is selling a 35-135 mm lense for just $119. It is a better >lense cause it has 30 mm more range and is cheaper. The same size, yes. The same lens, no. There *is* a difference. A zoom lens does have qualities beyond the price and the zoom range, believe it or not. How about sharpness, quality of construction, size, weight, warranty, zoom mechanism quality, ruggedness, mount, ... In any case, the 30 mm difference is not like the difference between a 50 mm and an 85 mm; it's more like 50 mm and 65 mm. No big deal, really. Personally, I'd go for the Canon if it's available at a good price. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen
ix654@sdcc6.UUCP (ix654) (01/19/85)
> > I would recommend against buying a Canon 35-105 mm f3.5. Many people > make the same lense for much less money, Tokina to name just one. > Abe's of Maine is selling a 35-135 mm lense for just $119. It is a better > lense cause it has 30 mm more range and is cheaper. > Jeff *** replace this line with whatever .. Holy banana - It's LENS or LENSES, not LENSE !!! I don't know why, but this drives me crazy. Erek Behr, UCSD (sdcc6 | ix654)
djw@lanl.ARPA (01/23/85)
> In article <215@oblio.UUCP> jeff@oblio.UUCP (Jeff Buchanan) writes: > >I would recommend against buying a Canon 35-105 mm f3.5. > > A zoom lens does have qualities beyond the price and the zoom range, > > \tom haapanen > watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Barry L******* one of our Optics people has completed a series of tests on lenses of approximately 35X135 mm focal length. He personnally bought a Kiron 35-105 mm Zoom/Macro and recommends it highly. He "claims" it is as good as the comparable NIKON. It sells for $99.98 and I just sent off my schekels... This is a very high recommendation... You should probably force some photography magazine to review this lens. The companion lens is also highly recommended. David Wade Los Alamos National Laboratories These opinions must be taken as only my opinions based on my conversations with Barry and there is no official support of these opinions. I do not recommend that you buy anything. I only point out to you that this is a superlative ( optically ) lens and it costs about 1/3 as much as the name brand lenses. You should make your own choices. I do recommend that you force a magazine to review the lens and compare it with others.
chris@pixutl.UUCP (chris) (01/23/85)
>> >> I would recommend against buying a Canon 35-105 mm f3.5. Many people >> make the same lense for much less money, Tokina to name just one. >> Abe's of Maine is selling a 35-135 mm lense for just $119. It is a better >> lense cause it has 30 mm more range and is cheaper. >> Jeff > > It's LENS or LENSES, not LENSE !!! > > I don't know why, but this drives me crazy. > > Erek Behr, UCSD > (sdcc6 | ix654) The fact that someone thinks a lens is better just because it has more range is not bad either. Chris -- Chris Bertin : (617) 657-8720 x2318 Pixel Computer Inc. : 260 Fordham Rd. : {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\ Wilmington, Ma 01887 : !wjh12!pixel!pixutl!chris
wunder@wdl1.UUCP (02/04/85)
Aobut the Canon/Kiron/etc. debate: Actually, the lens mount is very expensive to manufacture. Most off-brand lenses are not as durable or well balanced as the native (like Canon) lens. This really does matter if you are going to do a lot of motor drive photography, or change lenses a lot (like the newspaper stuff that I did in school). Focusing and zooming cams are also expensive to do right. They should be smooth, tight, and need a minimum of lubrication. The same is true for the aperature and the stop-down mechanisms (this is what falls apart during motor drive use). I always use fixed focal lengths anyway. I figured that I would never have enough money to buy a really good zoom anyway. Now I have the money, but I'm too attached to my 35/2 and my 85/1.8 (talk about sharp!) to carry around a nasty, slow, heavy zoom lens. So why do I carry around my heavy F-1? I don't know. -- photo by w. underwood
cff@uvaee.UUCP (Chuck Ferrara) (02/14/85)
> Aobut the Canon/Kiron/etc. debate: > > Actually, the lens mount is very expensive to manufacture. Most off-brand > lenses are not as durable or well balanced as the native (like Canon) > lens. This really does matter if you are going to do a lot of motor > drive photography, or change lenses a lot (like the newspaper stuff that > I did in school). Focusing and zooming cams are also expensive to do > right. They should be smooth, tight, and need a minimum of lubrication. > The same is true for the aperature and the stop-down mechanisms (this > is what falls apart during motor drive use). > > I always use fixed focal lengths anyway. I figured that I would never > have enough money to buy a really good zoom anyway. Now I have the > money, but I'm too attached to my 35/2 and my 85/1.8 (talk about sharp!) > to carry around a nasty, slow, heavy zoom lens. > > So why do I carry around my heavy F-1? I don't know. > > -- photo by w. underwood You're right about the durability of off brand lenses, as far as I can tell. I own 2 Vivitar lenses, each of which has had problems, while my 3 Minolta Rokkors (50/1.7, 135/3.5 & 250/5.6) have been trouble free (although the 250 is still brand new and has no aperature ring or diphragm to worry about). My Vivitar Series 1 28-90 zoom (still under warantee) had to be repaired for a loose zoom collar. It was clunking every time I shook the camera. It's a sharp lens and fast (f/2.8-3.5) for a zoom, but it's bulky and weighs a ton. I know it's not as sharp as a fixed focal length lens, but it's worth it for not having to switch lenses all the time. I also own a Vivitar 28 mm f/2, which had its diaphragm crap out after 4 years. It had oil on the diaphragm and cost $30 to clean. Admittedlty, it's been through alot. I regularly take my equipment backpacking in all kinds of weather and these lenses have seen everthing from -15 to +100 degrees. Both lenses are working fine now and I hope these problems were one time flukes.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (02/22/85)
> > Actually, the lens mount is very expensive to manufacture. Most off-brand > > lenses are not as durable or well balanced as the native (like Canon) > > lens. > You're right about the durability of off brand lenses, as far as I > can tell. Ditto, while my no name zoom lens is durable enough, it has this uncanny problem of being out of focus at infinity when you have it all the way against the focus stop. -Ron