Should I retun my 18-200 for a 28-135

[NullMind]

2 Weeks ago I bought a Sigma 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 DC to use with my new 20D, ths was before I started to get a little more in-depth and learnign about other lenses, the 18-200 is a great lens, but makes me wonder how much better a IS lense would be for everyday handheld use (I can return the leses up to 30 days for a full refund)

So after looking around I see the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS for about the same price.

My question is, is the IS worth loosing 65mm on the Zoom an 10mm in the wide ?

Thanks for any advise

Null

[pehabe]

i am afraid 'yes you should return it' ;)

[buze]

Huh. On what principle ? The 18-200 is very versatile on a 20D. The 28-135 is just a lame "consumer" zoom with an expensive IS thingy on. It's not even wide enough, and it's not even long enough either.

Having IS on a wide lens is STUPID. It's marketting bullsh*it. At 28mm you need 1/25s to get a sharp shot. Getting "two stops" down on that the brings you down to 1/8s, and THAT is so totaly stupid it's not even funny. All you get is a "sharp enough" background and a fuzzy subject.

As much as I love IS on long lens, that trend of putting it on wide zoom is really stupid, it's most definitely marketting bull at it's best. It's like Canon saying "making fast glass is expensive (to us, too), so instead, we put IS on it (cheap electronics) and we sell it to you ... same price!"

If you have a need for speed, get a fast optical lens. Try the "Nifty fifty" that should get you going. Get versatility where you can find it (18-200), get available light where you can find it (any fast prime)

[MrChad]

I love my Sigma 18-125mm, I think you should stick with the Sigma. You won't find a huge improvement jumping to the Canon. And you will loose the wide angle which I find esential on the 1.6x frame.

I had a Canon 28-105mm and I truely prefer the Sigma's FOV.

[ACDCROCKS]

28-135 is better, in optical, build and has IS, Why not buy it? It's canon :)

[J Rabin]

Null:
Keep the darn thing.
Everyone needs to have a non-serious outdoor sunny day knockabout one-lens solution for kayak trips, scouting with the kids, picture taking when the goal is recording the experience, not "making" photographs, etc. There are a few of them. The Sigma you have, the Tamron 18-200 equal, the Tokina 24-200, etc.

While a nice sharp lens stopped down to f/8-11 (this was taken handheld with it) http://aesop.rutgers.edu/~rabin/Snyder%20Farm/slides/Apple%20Promo%20Gail.htm
I sold the Canon 28-135mm IS because:
a. On a 1.6 FOV Crop camera, 28mm is not wide enough but 24 or 18mm ARE wide enough on a one fun lens solution.
b. I kept wanting either more than 135mm on the tele end, or less than 28mm on the wide end. I mostly used the Canon from 70-135mm.
c. The IS does NOT compensate for the slow f/stops at shorter focal lengths. In other words, below 100mm, having a faster f/stop lens is more valuable than IS. At 100mm+ the IS trade-off is more situation dependent.
d. The Canon 28-135mm has the same tele zoom creep problems that many cheaper telezooms have.

After two+ years of evolution I ended up with a bizarre 3 lens travel combo:
1. The 17-40 f/4 L on the wide end
2. The 70-300 DO IS on the long end because its IS rocks despite the controversy surrounding image quality, it has a zoom lock, goes to 300mm so there is tele when you need it, comes with a hood, etc.
3. The EF-S 60mm macro f/2.8 for lower (not low) light and close ups.

Wanna know something? I'm still going to pick up the Sigma 18-200 or Tokina 24-200 (more likely so its FF and 35mm film compatible) for kayak trips, camping, family day hikes, bicycling, etc.
All that expensive glass, and I still need a one-lens junker! Go figure. I image quality of the 18-200 sure beats a digicam.

Jack
Edit. Need to add, for work, I use L lenses. If you're getting paid use the best, fastest glass affordable. I felt your Q was about personal use and this was my fun evolution away from the 28-135mm IS.

[whchan]

Keep the sigma lens. Losing 10mm on the wide side is a big deal for landscape shots. Picture quality wise, you are not gaining anything by going with the Canon 28-135 (on a sunny day outdoor photos). IS will not help freezing moving object and it will only help on hand shaking at the long end (espcially when the sky start getting dark). I do not think you have to worry about hand shaking (at 135mm) when shooting daytime outdoor, just use a higher ISO for compensation

[Sikario]

Have a look at this (http://www.pixagogo.com/0280105208) page, it compares the Sigma 18-200mm with the Canon 28-135mm IS, I'd personally say you should keep the Sigma.

[NullMind]

Thanks, I appreciate for the comments.

One allways gets weary that he didnt pick up the best lenses for the price, from what I read here, I'll keep them :)

[Saudidave]

THe 28-135IS is a great lens but not wide enough on a 1.6x crop about town. I've changed mine for a 17-85IS because of that. The IS is superb and anyone who tells you you don't need it at shorter focal lengths either doesnt' understand the fixed mathematical relationships between iso/aperture/shutter speed, doesn't shoot indoors in natural light, or carries a tripod everywhere. You can get a sharp picture at 1/4second and blur water, all handheld without do much as a door frame for support, let alone a tripod. Check out my attachment - 1/4second, f6.3, 40mm. (Canon 28-135IS on a 350D/XT
As regards image quality, I took test shots with a 28-135IS, Sigma 18-200 & Tamron 18-200 before I bought the Canon. It was streets in front in terms of resolution and CA. A no brainer it was that much better.

[condyk]

The 28-135 IS is well past it's sell by date. Old IS and average image quality. The difference in quality compared to the Sigma is just not worth the trouble of changing. Check out www.fredmiranda.com ... the conclusions will be clear. There are some who seem to say buy Canon whatever ... but when you pay more and get the same or worse quality then really they need their head (or integrity) examining.

[Saudidave]

The IS on my 28-135 is a good 2 stops and I don't notice any difference to the IS on my 17-85IS, which is a later generation. None at all. They are both great IS. The Canon V Tamron shots are attached. Same subject, focal length, sperture and shutter speed, a couple of minutes apart. Never mind fred miranda, this is reality! Make your own mind up

[rklepper]

The 2 questions you need to ask about your current lens, before returning are: Am I satisfied with the pictures I get? Am I having fun getting them? If yes, then keep it.

[condyk]

Never mind fred miranda, this is reality! Make your own mind up

Of course, at the end of the day, if anyone is happy with a specific piece of equipment then good luck to them. To date 83 owners/users have reported back at fredmiranda based on their experience and they assess this lens at 7.7/10 so it's about at the top end of somewhat average in my book. Maybe their combined reality should be noted or maybe it should be ignored. I would certainly note what people say ... AND I would then make my own mind up.

Personally, when I owned a copy myself, after following recommendations here, my view was that this lens was a waste of money ... and certainly compared to the Sigma 24-70 2.8 and Tamron 28-75 2.8: both are faster, cheaper and able to produce more colourful and well contrasted images as far as my eyes tell me. This lens really starts to show its limitations in good company.

Jack Rabin has summarised better than I can the reasons why I consider this lens as a distinctly sub optimal purchase for anyone's cash.

[NullMind]

I'll keep the 18-200 for now, and will save for the Canon 24-105mm F/4.0 L IS USM .. they seem to be on another class :)

the 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM (once again, not IS) is also at a very good price, but they just look so big and "noticable" :/

and Saudidave, nice to see a local here, I'm in Sale :)

[Saudidave]

Condyk saidI would certainly note what people say ... AND I would then make my own mind up.


That's exactly what I did. I made my own mind up on the evidence of MY pictures & I bought the Canon. There was no contest

[Sikario]

From the 100-135mm range how would the Canon 100-300mm compare to the Canon 28-135mm?