Talk:Canon EF 28-105mm lens

f/3.5 - 4.5 Identification

The reference 2 does not mention any lens origin markings, and a citation is needed to clarify where the lens origin marking information is sourced.

At least some of the lenses are marked “CANON ZOOM LENS EF 28 - 105mm 1: 3.5 - 4.5 II USM CANON LENS MADE IN JAPAN (filter size)58mm”. I have one marked in this way: carrying both “II” marking and “LENS MADE IN JAPAN”. The article is thus ambiguous about which model such a lens would be (“ Initially there was no "II" marking on the bezel, but "LENS MADE IN JAPAN" was clearly stamped on the opposite side of the bezel.[2], later Japanese production was marked "II USM" and "Made in Japan".)86.11.99.90 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Chris Owens

28-105 f3.5 - 4.5 USM II macro mode

The Canon 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5 USM II does have a macro mode. The table should be modified to reflect this.

Technically this not a macro lens. I know, it says "macro" on the lens, but the maximum magnification of the lens is about 0.19, or ~1:5. This is not even close to a true macro lens. Canon, for some reason, decided to put "Macro" or that little flower logo, on some lenses. Not all lenses with good max magnification ratios have this, for example the 300mm f/4L IS USM, says "MACRO 1.5M/4.9ft" on the lens. But the 17-40mm f/4L USM does not say anything about macro. However both these lenses have a max magnification factors of x0.24. I really think it's nothing but a "selling" point. It's a good idea to add this info to the lens chart, which I will do, I do not think it's worth mentioning in the written article. Nebrot (talk) 08:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A better solution would be a sentence along the lines of e.g. "Canon describes the 28-105mm as a Macro lens. However, its magnification ratio is 1:5, which is lower than the generally-accepted magnificiation range of macro photography." I just dashed that off, I'm sure you can do better. That way you will break the cycle of people reading at the article, adding the fact that it is a macro lens, and then having you remove this, repeat ad nauseum. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove anything to begin with. I do not appreciate being accused of something I did not commit. I did add the maximum magnification to the lens chart.

Do you even know anything about photographic lenses? Did you even read the article on Macro photography? This is not a macro lens! I own two lenses that have higher maximum magnification than this lens, and they say nothing about macro. Why? It's called marketing. Canon (Nikon, Sigma, and Tamron) write "Macro" on some of there lenses to fool people into thinking "I have can have a macro lens!", so they buy it. In fact all four of canons macro lenses, don't have the yellow "MACRO x.xm/x.xft" written on them. Shocking! Nebrot (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I added some (hopefully) clarifying text to para 1 re: non-macro. Anyone with any photographic knowledge understands these are by no means macro lenses, but since Wiki doesn't have readership requirements, perhaps some text is appropriate. Ken (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)