Canon Image Stabilized Lenses

[Rob Larsen]

I'm looking for a good all-around first lens for my EOS 10D to use for general photography (landscapes, wildlife, occasional portraits, and snapshots). This will be my only lens while "traveling light" on backpacking trips. While I plan on growing my lens collection with time, my current budget caps at $500.

The 2 lenses I am considering are the Canon 28-135 IS and the 28-200. The IS is appealing for it's extra hand-held stops and the 200 appeals for wildlife.

Therefore, I'm looking for some help in deciding and have some questions....

Does IS really give you 2 full stops of additional stability as claimed? How much additional battery does IS consume? Can IS be turned off when not needed? Is one environmentally sealed better than the other (seems I read the IS is)? Are the optics in these lenses equivalent?

Any words of experience are appreciated.

Regards,
Rob Larsen

[Longwatcher]

- Yes the IS can be turned off when not needed (like when on tripod)

- It will give at least one stop, sometimes 2 stops; however remember that IS only helps in correcting for photographer/camera shake, it does not help if your target is moving (Possibly limiting in wildlife photography)

- As to quality, not sure on quality of 28-200, but 28-135IS had one of the highest ratings for a non-L lens.

All I know is before my lens started having problems it took some fantastic pictures. The problems were most likely caused by heavy use over the past year. When I get it back it will probably go back on the camera when I travel.

Although I would usually recommend the 28-135 IS; for your specific use of one lens were you might need more telephoto, this is one occasion were you might want to look at the Sigma lenses, given they will have similiar quality to the 28-200.

On the flip side, if you can afford to get the 75-300IS as your next lens, then definately get the 28-135 IS. also, don't forget to get a 50/1.8 to go with it for those low-light situations were the f3.5 won't cut it.

Just my opinions,

[Rob Larsen]

Tim, thank you for the information. I liked your suggestion of the 75-300IS -- I had not considered that lens before. Checking it's price, I see that it might even fall into my wife's budget tolerance. I still struggle with the idea of carrying 2 lenses while backpacking... but I might have to settle on just leaving other less essential items at home.

I had considered the Sigma lenses and was encouraged by reviews in Shutterbug. But, pursuing other reviews on the web and in this forum have turned up a real mixed bag on the Sigmas -- generally more negative than I see with the Canon lenses. Some were very poor. Therefore, I've decided it best to stick with Canon.

Have you determined what went wrong with your 28-135IS? Was it USM, IS, or lens?

Regards,
Rob

[Longwatcher]

Rob Larsen wrote:

Have you determined what went wrong with your 28-135IS? Was it USM, IS, or lens?

Regards,
Rob

I won't know until I get it back, but it was definately a focus issue as in one of the elements appeared to be out of alignment. It would focus dead on target in the center (so not USM), but the outer areas of the image would get blurred; they did not when I first got and given 10D 1.6x crop this is really bad.
IS was still working as far as I could tell. As I mentioned in another thread I no longer trusted the IS, but it worked very time I was paying attention. My feeling might have been a result of the other problem.

At a minimum I expect the lens to work better when I get it back. I will be very dissapointed if they can't find the problem as I can see it with my own eyes on prints and it would even be noticeable had I been using film versus digital.

I miss that lens, despite having the 28-70L on the camera these days :-(

I am finding the 28-70 may take better pictures in the studio and low light, but the 28-135IS fits my random snap-shot technique much better. I think it is because it is slightly lighter and the wide angle is the resting setting, unlike the 28-70 with the long side the resting setting. (translation, the 28-70 lens extends to get the wide angle, the 28-135 extends to get the telephoto). I prefer the wide angle being the default setting on zooms.

This is my first lens where I feel the non 'L' is more useful overall, however I don't regret buying the 28-70 as it does help in low light concert and action shots.

[Phil Hall]

I have the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 IS and the 100-200IS. I use them mainly for wildlife and cowboy scenes. The 28-135 is very sharp and has great colors. You could use this with a 1.4X extender and have a good range of coverage. With these lenses I rarely use a tripod.


Phil Hall

Santa Ynez CA

[Rob Larsen]

Phil Hall wrote:
I have the 28-135 IS and the 70-200 IS and the 100-200IS. I use them mainly for wildlife and cowboy scenes. The 28-135 is very sharp and has great colors. You could use this with a 1.4X extender and have a good range of coverage. With these lenses I rarely use a tripod.



Phil, thanks for the info. I had not considered the extenders... that may be a good option for packing light (28-135 + extender). Also good for my initial budget.

Thanks all for the lens reviews. Your advise has helped me decide on the 28-135IS which I just purchased.

Regards,
Rob

[Longwatcher]

I highly doubt the Canon 1.4 or 2.0 extender will work, I can't remember if I actually tried it with the 28-135IS and since mine is in for repair...
However, the Canon lens chart says that won't work.
The extenders will not work on every lens.

I know it will NOT work on 75-300IS, 50/1.4, 28-70L.
It will work with 100-400IS and 70-200/2.8L.

I am pretty sure I have looked against the 28-135, but can't remember for sure though.

I am aware there are some other extenders that may work however.

[pwagner]

Checking the Canon information, the 1.4x II extender is not listed as working with the 28-135. Unless you have an EOS-1v or EOS-3 camera, you will lose autofocus. A bunch of the smaller Canon lenses apparaently won't even fit physically into the Canon-branded extenders.

Question for LongWatcher:
I have the 100-400 L and am considering the 1.4x, 1.4x II, and/or the 2.0x II. It seems that there are two ways to operate the 1.4x and 1.4x II on a lens such as the 100-400 L. If you use the extender as intended you give up autofocus; in this case do you get correctly measured exposure? i.e.: can I set the camera in AV mode, dial in f8 (or whatever) and the camera will choose the correct shutter? The second way to use the 1.4x and 1.4x II is to cover over 3 of the electrical contacts to fool the camera's aperature. Then you can apparaently get autofocus to work (sometimes). If you do this, do you get totally wrong light metering? Can you adjust for this by dialing in some extra brightness? What's the deal?

[Phil Hall]

Neither the 1.4x or 2.0x will physically fit on the 28-135 lense. Both will fit on the 70-200 IS and both work fine. They even work if you stack them together, but the quality is not very good. The 1.4x works fine on the 100-400 IS but the 2.x will only work in manual mode or if you tape over one the contacts.


Phil Hall

Santa Ynez, CA

[CyberDyneSystems]

Only the "L" glass will function with the 1.4X and 2X converters...

.. but now with the 70-200 and 100-400 we are moving the man into "L" glass territory and the $1,500.00+ price range...

Nromally I would agree that the 28-135 is an excellent first lens, but as others have mentioned ,. for wildlife,. (my personal area as well) somethinmg longer may be a better choice.

The way I see it, you could go in either of three directions.

1: Start with the 75-300 IS and save the wider 28-135 for lens number two.

2: Get a Sigma 28-200 or even 28-300mm (I did this in the beginng and am reasonably satisfied, i still use the lens quite regularly as a walk around lens despite owning a numbr of far better quality lenses). I will not argue that these lenses are on par with the Canon IS lenses,m... but for $200.00 you can a lens that will do a decent job of covering the focal range of two more expensive lenses.

3. Convince yourself and spouse that you have to spend a lot of cash on an "L" 70-200mm and some teleconverters.

Option three is by far the best long term solution as you will never outgrow that lens. Be sure to look at the 70-200 f/4 "L" and the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 as well. Both are excellent lenses and about the same price range,. $550.00 or so.

Also be aware that these lenses are far less portable than the 28-135 IS or Sigma 28-200/28-300mm

[Longwatcher]

pwagner wrote:

Question for LongWatcher:
I have the 100-400 L and am considering the 1.4x, 1.4x II, and/or the 2.0x II. It seems that there are two ways to operate the 1.4x and 1.4x II on a lens such as the 100-400 L. If you use the extender as intended you give up autofocus; in this case do you get correctly measured exposure? i.e.: can I set the camera in AV mode, dial in f8 (or whatever) and the camera will choose the correct shutter? The second way to use the 1.4x and 1.4x II is to cover over 3 of the electrical contacts to fool the camera's aperature. Then you can apparaently get autofocus to work (sometimes). If you do this, do you get totally wrong light metering? Can you adjust for this by dialing in some extra brightness? What's the deal?


I can't comment on the taped contact thing as I won't be trying it for at least another 6 months, I treat my lenses harshly, but I don't do anything that might void warranty ;-) As to autofocus and exposure.

Yes with the 100-400L and an extender (either 1.4X II or 2.0x) you will end up manually focusing [unless the tape the contacts works]. However, no other automatic features lost. The camera works TTL and it knows which lens combination is on the camera (except putting 1.4x and 2x together) and sets everything appropriately (or at least as close as it ever gets).

Just my experience

[Rob Larsen]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Only the "L" glass will function with the 1.4X and 2X converters...

.. but now with the 70-200 and 100-400 we are moving the man into "L" glass territory and the $1,500.00+ price range...


All right! You guys (and gals?) have blown my budget and are probably going to get me thrown into the dog house!

I did start with the 28-135IS as my all purpose lens thanks to the many suggestions and reviews provided in this forum. This last weekend I took my new lens out and captured some distant wildlife shots. Viewing the results, I knew I had to go longer sooner than later.

After much negotiating, I got my wife to tolerate the idea that $380 for a lens (75-300IS) is not that crazy. Then I started my research....

Very serious consideration was placed on cheaper 200 & 300 primes, the 70-200s, TCs, and the Sigma 50-500. Ultimately I deferred to undisputed quality, zoom-ability, and not having to swap TCs and choose the 100-400L IS. Although the Sigma 50-500 was nearly my choice, I was very influenced by Jim at RFMSports's impressive unedited portfolio with the 100-400 (http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/SprintBoats/June2003/TheRace/index.htm) and also by Light Chaser's perspective in thread http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10173#48098.

As I anxiously await the delivery of my new lens, I contemplate the consequences when my wife finds out that my forum friends have successfully moved me into "L glass."

I know I won't regret it. Thanks everyone for making this forum the great resource that it is!

Rob
Erie, Colorado

[fredlord]

I switched last fall from the 75-300 non-IS to the 100-400L lens and couldn't be happier. Well, I would be happier if it would autofocus with the 1.4x TC fitted on my D60. The 75-300 was a perfectly fine lens and loads lighter and more portable than the 100-400 but I'm having so much fun with the new lens that I haven't looked back. I would be thinking of a good sturdy tripod upgrade if yours isn't real solid though.

One thing that dumbfounded me (not that uncommon a thing) was the weight and bulk of the L series lenses compared to the gold ring lenses. When I received my 24-70 I couldn't believe how much larger it was than my old 28-105, It is far sharper than anything I've owned from Canon in any case. I did have some incredibly sharp Nikkor prime lenses in the old days but I think this thing matches them easily. I cannot testify to anything Nikkor since 1977 when I converted to Canon systems, however.

I use the 16-35 less so I haven't really formed an opinion about its accutance relative to the 24-70. My next child is on the block in prep for purchase of a 500mm f/4. I like to shoot birds so I need it (yah sure!). I sold all my other children to buy the three L lenses I now own. It was time for them to go out on their own anyway.

I see you're in Erie, Rob. I live in Frisco. Let us know how you do with the new lens. I would be interested in reading your reaction.

[pwagner]

Hi Rob,

I see RFM got you hooked too! I read this board for about 3 weeks before making my 10D purchase. I'm happy to report that the 100-400 was my FIRST lens. 160mm effective minimum focus was a very "challenging" around-the-house setup! :-)

The 28-135 IS USM and 50mm II "thrifty fifty" followed within two weeks, but I still find myself looking for every excuse possible to use the 100-400. Something about that "L" feel.

Here's a little site I put together from my first outing with the 28-135 and the 100-400.

http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/

[danphoto1]

It all depends on what you shoot but if I had to have just one L lens to start the choice would be difficult, When I bought my D30 I also purchase the 100-400 stabilized Canon. At the time I had a cheap 28-80 that came with my old film rebel and a another Quantaray lens that is noy a doorstop or paper weight. I veleive a 70-300, I love that lens and have used it and used it and used it I shoot a lot of kids action sports and the lens is incredible Iwas using the old 28-80 lens to shoot a quick team photo and could notice that the photo was soft compared to the other lens. I moved to the Sigma 2.8 28-70. Nice lens but the gears in the camera are made of not so rugged plastic. with in a year or two I had to bring the thing in to get the gears replaced. We are very fortunate tho have a factory authiorized repair shop near by. for Canon Nikkon and Sigma. I know have a few other great Canon lenses and learned the hardway Even the 75-300 IS lens is brighter and sharper and gets more contrast than any 3rd party lins that I have used.


Great choice get a 2nd job sell your kids take out a 2nd morgage but get the best glass that you can and you won't regret it Quality glass used by even a good amature photographer will result in excellent photographs. Because of technology and digital camera advancements the gap is diminishing between the pro and amature.

[Vegas Poboy]

I presently use a sigma 28 - 200 compact it has been great with both types of film but I feel its a little soft with the 10D I'm presently going to switch to the 28-135mm IS since the reviews have been very high. If you don't mind tweaking every photo the Sigma compact is great I've used it for vacationing from San Diego to Miami it's overall a great everyday lens, cheap and light but works. Remember Canon extenders are made only for L lens nothing else and with the 10d you do pick up a extra1.6 mag.
Good Luck

[Dave I]

The 100-400 IS L is my favorite lens.

On thing I'd suggest is taking along a monopod when possible. I've been spending a lot of time at the Houston zoo, and I took along the monopod for the first time last trip. It helped with the long shots a lot. IS is very good, but an effective 640mm zoom can use all the help it can get.

With a quick-release plate attached to the lens' tripod mount, you can use the monopod fully extended as a walking stick, and quickly attach it to shoot.

[Vegas Poboy]

Double yes on the Monopod & quick release plates I do the same it was a great help @ the San Diego Zoo & Wild Animal Park.

[Rob Larsen]

fredlord wrote:
I see you're in Erie, Rob. I live in Frisco. Let us know how you do with the new lens. I would be interested in reading your reaction.

Fred, I had a great time with my new 100-400 this last weekend. It's length afforded me shots I would never have got otherwise. I'm impressed with it's color and clarity.

We backpacked up near Cameron Pass (Hwy 14 near Gould) in search of moose. We found them on 3 occasions -- once far off in distance, once in very late twilight at 3200 ASA, and finally at 5:45AM grazing in a dark riparian valley below our tent. We had just enough light to capture them.

http://www.roblarsen.com/gallery/Moose/calf-flanking-cow.htm

Some more pictures from that trip are at http://www.roblarsen.com/gallery/Moose/ . FYI... I have no regrets on my lens choice. A long prime would not have let us capture these pics as the curious calf began to approach us. A truly exciting, but scary moment.

After my moose-loving wife saw the results, she has now grown to appreciate a good camera and glass. She's even considering upgrading her Powershot S300 for the new 300D. :D

Regards,
Rob
Erie, Colorado