28-135 F3.5-5.6 IS lens

[perfectpixel]

am I missing something here?
I've read so many good reviews of this lens. It seems like it is the lens to get with a new 10D (assuming you have no other canon lenses already), and that this is the lens most people keep on their camera all the time....
...but at 135mm, isn't that F5.6 a problem? I was trying to shoot yesterday evening infront of a big picture window with beutiful light (that seemed adequate:)) but found myself having to replace my 28-105 F2.8-3.5 lens with a 50mm F1.7 to get decent shutter speeds.
Don't you guys run into that problem with an F5.6 for the long range of this lens. The IS would not help since the problem would be subject movement.

That said, what other choices are there that would not be cost prohibitive (read

[RichardtheSane]

The F5.6 isn't a problem.
You can always up the ISO to 200 or 400 to get the shot.
My 100-400L has a max aperture of 5.6 and as you can imagine that lens has a much longer focal length.
What shutter speed were you getting and what do you call a decent shutter speed?

[perfectpixel]

I had ASA100 loaded
I was getting 1/15- 1/30 until I changed to the F1.7, then 1/60 which *might* be godd enough to avaoid blur of less than cooperative subject (5 year old)

[Longwatcher]

Although I tend to keep the 28-135 IS as my lens that stays on the 10D, this is because it is the overall most versatile lens I own in the range I am likely to use it. However, I usually also travel with the 50/1.4 for low light use to compensate for one of the weaknesses of the 28-135. These two lenses probably cover 90% of the opportunities for a grab the camera and take pictures without thinking. Time permitting of course I will change over to the best lens for the job at hand if I am carrying my full lens kit.

The 28mm end is good enough to catch some things indoors (with ISO set at 400) and the 135mm end gives me some range outdoors. Although I prefer my 28-70/2.8L or 70-200/2.8L IS for out right quality, neither has the flexability that the 28-135 provides and sometimes getting the shot is more important then getting the highest quality, so the 28-135 IS is the one that stays on my camera.

Just my opinion,

[Friis]

I am thinking of getting this lens as my every day lens, but the test I found is dated 1999! is there a version II comming? or somthing new around the corner!

[LEC_D30]

Has any one used Sigma 28-135 3.8-5.6 ?

How it compares to Canon 28-135?


Thanks,

lec_d30

[The Photo Tuell]

It seems that the optics are decent for the price. The range is very useful, hopefully so is IS.

The thing I've seen mentioned most is 'zoom creep' and dust getting into the lens. Zoom creep is when you tilt the lens forward or back and the zoom moves by itself. Can be annoying I'm sure, one reason I'm hesitating to get this lens. Dust can get in easy because of the extending zoom.

I wish they would make a new higher quality version of this lens. The zoom range and IS are tempting but I might go for the 70-200 F4L instead because of better optics and build quality.

Here's a couple places with lens reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=10&sort=7&thecat=27

http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=325

[perfectpixel]

waiting for the ideal lens....if they are going to redesign the lens, it would be great to have a lower focal lenght value too, say 17-135. Not sure if this would even be possible.
thanks for the links

[Lesmac]

I have a number of lenses, but my general walkabout lens is the 28-135 IS, it's so versatile, the IS is a real benefit. If the light does get too low to hand hold, I bump up the ISO to 400/800 and use neatimage to remove any noise.

[Andy_T]

unstuck wrote:
it would be great to have a lower focal lenght value too, say 17-135. Not sure if this would even be possible.

Now that would change this 5x zoom lens to an 8x zoom lens.

Most likely, image quality on the ends would suffer considerably.

Regards,
Andy

[dbarthel]

I started with the 28-135IS and have no regrets. Then moved wide with a 16-35L, then long with a 100-400IS. With those 3 lenses, you have the waterfront covered, with IS everywhere you need it.

[Mark Kemp]

I am not convinced about this fast lens at all costs argument.

For instance the 28-135 IS

At 135 (* 1.6 on a digital) even if the lens could acheive f1.8 the depth of field would be tiny.

IS gives you some compensation for camera shake (which can save a photo and has done for me) but doesnt help with subject movement.

If you need a fast shutter speed to freeze a subject, yes a fast lens may give it to you, but it had better be a pretty small subject or not much will be sharp.

Im afraid that f5.6 is a pretty sensible aperture to get a subject all in the sharp zone, so using a higher ISO to get a fast shutter speed is a more realistic proposition.