28-135 IS

[IanD]

A couple of shots with my new 28-135 IS
Hard to believe this little lens can produce such images.
Shot as RAW and converted in CS to Tiff. Straight up.
Lens cap shot at F5.6 1/4 sec ISO 200
http://www.pbase.com/image/25523032.jpg
Jessie (who is getting really pi%$#* at me sticking the camera in her face while napping) shot at F5.6 1/10 sec ISO 200
http://www.pbase.com/image/25523029.jpg
I love this lens :lol:

[Conor]

nice, but in the first pic you have alittle jpg compression going on. might want to back it down alittle

:)

[toddb]

That's my only lens. :-P You can get a 500D to attach to it and take some pretty good macros with it. It's truely a good all round lens and a great price point.

[Belmondo]

It just looks ome more thing for Gitzo to carry around. Nice picture of the pooch, though. :wink:

[pradeep1]

You know you are a true gearhead/geek when you photograph your camera equipment. Then, again, so do I. Oops.

:lol:

[adegiulio]

Hey Conor, can you explain your post a little bit, for a newbie like me?? What is JPEG compression, and how do you detect it in a photo?? What qualities about this photo makes you think there is JPEG compression??
Thanks!

[IanD]

nice, but in the first pic you have alittle jpg compression going on. might want to back it down alittle

:)
Conor,
The shots were resized for the web from the converted Tiff. Did not pay much attention to the compression.
Ian

[Belmondo]

Hey Conor, can you explain your post a little bit, for a newbie like me?? What is JPEG compression, and how do you detect it in a photo?? What qualities about this photo makes you think there is JPEG compression??
Thanks!

JPEG compression removes redundant pixels and/or groups of pixels to make the file size smaller. The higher the amount of compression, the more pixels are removed. In the case of IanD's picture, JPEG removed one of the N's from 'CANNON' on the lens cap.

Ignore the comment about the lens cap. Couldn’t resist.

[IanD]

Hey Conor, can you explain your post a little bit, for a newbie like me?? What is JPEG compression, and how do you detect it in a photo?? What qualities about this photo makes you think there is JPEG compression??
Thanks!

JPEG compression removes redundant pixels and/or groups of pixels to make the file size smaller. The higher the amount of compression, the more pixels are removed. In the case of IanD's picture, JPEG removed one of the N's from 'CANNON' on the lens cap.

Ignore the comment about the lens cap. Couldn’t resist.
I thought there was something funny with that lens cap :lol:

[Sunshine]

Glad to hear you are happy with the 28-135 IS. I'm getting one in two weeks. Just in time to take some winter sunrises and sunsets at the beach! I did read some negative reviews about this lens on some sites I found (can't remember where). I was a little concerned because this will be the only decent lens I own (not counting the crap lens that came with my old eos 3000) for a few months.
Dana

[adegiulio]

Looking back, I can see my question makes me sound even dumber than I am. I am familiar with JPEG compression, but I guess my question is how does it manifest itself visually in a final shot...

Oh, and the Cannon thing, good one...no really, it was funny... :lol: :lol:

[Tom W]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - if I didn't have the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens, I would definately go for the 28-135. I've yet to find anybody that is NOT happy with it.

[dennykyser]

Seems that the only people that have anything negative to the lens are teh L-choholics. They seem to campare the lens to there L lens, sure it will be not as clear but I plan on using mine until I can get some L lenses.

[Tom W]

Seems that the only people that have anything negative to the lens are teh L-choholics. They seem to campare the lens to there L lens, sure it will be not as clear but I plan on using mine until I can get some L lenses.

And do note that many folks with "L" glass also sport the 28-135 lens. Its good enough that many don't see a need to replace it (though some have duplicate L glass covering the same range). You probably won't find more lens at that price and that weight.

[Belmondo]

Seems that the only people that have anything negative to the lens are teh L-choholics. They seem to campare the lens to there L lens, sure it will be not as clear but I plan on using mine until I can get some L lenses.

As to your first sentence, I don't see very many people saying anything negative about the 28-135, and certainly nobody in this thread so far. Regarding your second sentence, I would suggest that the vast majority of L glass owners either currently own this lens or have owned it sometime in the past, and hold it in very high regard. Being realistic, however, if you owned a couple expensive f/2.8 lenses that covered this focal range, what would you use? It's a fairly obvious choice, and is in no way indicative of anyone's dissatisfaction with the 28-135.

Just one man's opinion.

[samdring]

That's my only lens. :-P You can get a 500D to attach to it and take some pretty good macros with it. It's truely a good all round lens and a great price point.

agree entirely with your sentiments but which 500d do you use - the 52 and 58 not on so are you stepping up from 72mm to 77mm?

[Andrea_T]

I own 'L' lenses and this one, and when I want a lightweight, unobtrusive walkabout lens it's my first choice. It's sharp enough for most uses and the IS in this zoom range is unique - no L lens in this range offers it. Don't hesitate to get it, and if in future you find it doesn't suit your needs then you will probably be able to re-sell it for very little, if any, financial loss because it's a well-regarded lens and always in demand.

[chris.bailey]

http://www.pbase.com/chris_bailey/canon_lense_tests

A tad crude but shows the 28-135 IS is no slouch against some very stiff opposition.

[dennykyser]

They were not from this thread, just a few reviews I read when considering the lens.

[Belmondo]

They were not from this thread, just a few reviews I read when considering the lens.

Oh. Okay.

Actually, there is a school of thought that says if a lens doesn't have a red ring on it, it's not worth owning. It's a shame that so many people are myopic on the subject; I think a lot of bad advice has been given to newer users by more experienced folks on this very subject.

The truth is, Canon (and others) offer a great many lenses that are truly wonderful, and don’t carry the L designation. I was going through my own bag recently, and admiring some of the non-L lenses I own that really give top-notch performance. Two of my favorites are the 50mm f/1.4, and the 100mm f/2.8 macro. And there are the Sigma EX lenses, and some of the better offerings from Tamron, etc.. Clearly, the 28-135 IS falls into this category as well, although I no longer own one.

If I could give one piece of advice to a newer user based on my own experience, it would be to resist the temptation to rush into L glass ownership. The vast majority of us don’t really need lenses of that quality and expense. Experience, knowledge, and technique will have far more impact on the quality of our work than will the super expensive lenses in Canon’s professional line. Eventually, when we learn to take the best possible pictures we can with the equipment we have, we might start looking at expensive lenses to give us that last little bit of improvement that can be realized through superior optics.

A boring picture taken with a fantastic lens will still be a boring picture.

[Ebbz]

I'm sorry to question this; but isn't Canon spelled with only on "N"? :D

Rick

[dennykyser]

and One is spelled with an E at the end. :P

[dennykyser]

and One is spelled with an E at the end. :P

[Ebbz]

Isn't ONE spelled with an "E" on the end? :D

[UK_Terry]

Photos are missing?

[stuartf287]

:) And "you're" also is spelled with an "e" at the end and an apostrophe between the u and the r. :lol: :lol:

Trash-talking aside, I also really like the 28-135 IS. I just wish it were 24-135.

Forgive me the first comment. Years ago I taught English at Notre Dame.

[Morden]

You know you are a true gearhead/geek when you photograph your camera equipment. Then, again, so do I. Oops.

As do I, though simply for insurance purposes.

[Morden]

I did read some negative reviews about this lens on some sites I found (can't remember where). I was a little concerned because this will be the only decent lens I own (not counting the crap lens that came with my old eos 3000) for a few months.

As testified by more than one other thread on this very forum, the 28-135 is, for the most part, very highly regarded. It is a very versatile, well built, good quality lens that isn't too big, heavy or expensive. And it has IS!

Mine stays on my 10 more than my other lenses combined; it is many people's "walk around" lens.

Lack of an 'L' in the name, a red ring around the barrel or a white colour do not equate to a poor lens!

[UK_Terry]

I did read some negative reviews about this lens on some sites I found (can't remember where). I was a little concerned because this will be the only decent lens I own (not counting the crap lens that came with my old eos 3000) for a few months.

As testified by more than one other thread on this very forum, the 28-135 is, for the most part, ver highly regarded. It is a very versatile, well built, good quality lens that isn't too big, heavy or expensive. And it has IS!

Mine stays on my 10 more than my other lenses combined; it is many people's "walk around" lens.

Lack of an 'L' in the name, a red ring around the barrel or a white colour do not equate to a poor lens!

I fully agree, a most underestimated lens....It is my default lens.