File :-(, x, )
quick gearfag question, then sage to hell and back Anonymous
someone trying to sell the new kit lens from their 40D (28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS) for $330(USD)?

rip off or decent bargain?
>> Anonymous
Use your head and google.
>> Anonymous
retails for ~400

my concern isn't with the 70 dollar difference.. i want to know if it's a good lens or not, from /p/'s point of view (believe it or not).

i know /p/ has some 40D users.
>> Anonymous
>>211897
Not really, just from a usability perspective, I don't know anything about the lens-as-lens, but I don't imagine it's too kickass.

28-135 on a crop is a normal to long tele, not a range you'd usually go for, and it's slow.

To figure out if you like the lens or not, go look up samples of it on Flickr. But honestly, it doesn't sound too versatile to be worth it, but I don't know your shooting style.
>> Anonymous
uh technical review sites?

photozone.de
slrgear.com
fredmiranda.com
and possibly popphoto.com and the rest?
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>211902
ur doin it wrong
http://www.kenrockwell.com/
>> Anonymous
>>211904

i am not interested in the lens unless it comes with auto +10 saturation.

thanks, dearest /p/. you know i'll always love you.
>> Anonymous
>>211905
I just realized something: Rockwell might just bump up the saturation as a poor way of compensating for the bad color transmission of the bad lenses he owns.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>211892
It's a decent lens on full-frame, assuming you accept the limitations of variable max aperture and realize that most lenses with this misfeature are a bundle of optical compromises.
On DX/1.6 crop, not so great, as you lose all the wideness. I'm sure it actually performs a little better on crop, since you're only using the middle third of the glass, it's just that it isn't a very useful zoom range.