Mixed review experience with 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

[J Rabin]

In my experience, best feature of Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS is its ZOOM RANGE, NOT the IS. 28-135mm is nicer zoom range for candid/walkabout/vacation than 28-105. My copy is sharp “enough” when focused for some great 8x10s. I use it at 70-135mm a lot and have learned to tolerate the loose “zoom creep.” So, why am I frustrated enough with the 28-135mm IS that would I not buy it again?

Rotate zoom & watch f/stops: @28~35mm lens is f/3.5; @35~50mm lens is f/4; @50~70mm lens is f/4.5; @70~85mm lens is f/5; @85~135mm lens is f/5.6.

Even with IS, a 70mm f/5 lens is useless in other than bright light. An 85-135mm f/5.6 lens more so. At portrait F/Ls flash is needed indoor AND outdoor. A zoom this slow normally costs less. Canon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 is 1/2 stop faster at 70-105mm F/L for $230. If lens were faster, it would be more functional & the marginal IS benefit is even less. I’d rather have the stop than the IS. IS has not saved me many images from low light low shutter speed blur, flash saved them!

In summary, this is a wonderful general-purpose lens for travel candids outdoors, but you will grow frustrated beyond that use. The IS works, but it’s marginal in a lens so slow to start.

Potential buyers of the new EF-S IS zoom will likely share same marginal benefit experience. There is less IS benefit in these lenses than the 70-200mmL f/2.8 IS shooting in a low light auditorium. They are different beasts. Don’t imagine you’re getting same benefit because they are both IS. Save for faster glass.

If I had it to do over I’d get the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (even with noiser & slower focusing) and either Canon 70-200mmL f/4 for travel or Canon 70-200mmL 2.8 for sports depending on what you shoot most.

[nosquare2003]

I agree with you generally.

But it's the only EF lens that has IS in this range. And IS is useful some times. When you need to use longer shutter speed while tripod is not allowed -- it may be the only choice. In fact, I will borrow this lens for shots next week although I have a lot of faster lenses. The subject will be some kinds of "moving lights". Large aperture + short shutter speed is not a good way to shoot this thing. Tripod is not an option because I have to move around quickly. IS lens + monopod will be the best tools.

My point is that "IS" is not a replacement of fast lens and the reverse is also true.

BTW, I feel that the autofocus speed of this lens is not faster than the Tamron one.

[Cadwell]

Mmmm... OK.

First off, I am not sure where the myth that all USM lenses focus faster than lenses using a conventional focusing motor has come from but I'll guess at marketing hype. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 focuses quickly enough under AI Servo on the 10D to track a race car at well over 100mph. That's probably fast enough for most people. It's certainly fast enough for me. I'll grant that the USM on the 28-135mm is quieter than the Tamron.

I haven't used my EF 28-135mm in a long time - because I really don't like it. For the kind of shooting I do it is as much use as a chocolate teapot. I find the images soft and lacking contrast at wider apertures and the IS is no help at all to me. I would agree with the premise that it's probably all right for holiday snaps down the beach on a sunny day.

I ended up replacing the lens with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

I sort of agree with everyone so far. That lens is sharp(ish), but the contrast sucks; it has a great zoom range, but it's not fast enough under not-so-bright light conditions...
It was my first lens, then I almost never used it after buying the rest of my lenses either.
Now, in a lot of reviews I've read, they compare the 28-135mm IS to L lenses as far as picture quality is concerned, and I can't see how that would be true!

[J Rabin]

Cadwell:
Reads like we're agreeing. I am evolving in your direction, but will lose a few hundred $ for the experience. My local camera store offered $250 to take 28-135 IS toward trade for Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Then my next purchase will be the 70-200 2.8 for shooting at the velodrome under lights. The IS seems marginal since most subjects (people) move and panning is order of the day at sporting events.
My copy of the 28-135 is sharper than my 50mm f/1.4. Go figure. That and the zoom range is why I have this +/- relationship with it.
I was posting to provide learning curve experience for other potential users. A family point and shooter will like this lens.
J[/list]

[Cadwell]

Cadwell:
Reads like we're agreeing. I am evolving in your direction, but will lose a few hundred $ for the experience. My local camera store offered $250 to take 28-135 IS toward trade for Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Then my next purchase will be the 70-200 2.8 for shooting at the velodrome under lights. The IS seems marginal since most subjects (people) move and panning is order of the day at sporting events.

IS can help with sports photos under certain circumstances. I shoot race cars. On windy days I find I get a higher percentage of shots sharp with my 100-400L IS than I do with my Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 EX (in both cases shooting at about 1/400th). I put this down to the IS compensating a bit for the lens being blown about. The mode 2 IS also helps in pan shots.

Under normal circumstances there's nothing to choose between the percentage of sharp shots from either lens. Of course, when the light goes then the Sigma f/2.8 is the only game in town for me as I need to maintain shutter speed and it has a full two stops over the 100-400L.

[chris.bailey]

The 28-135 is the first Canon lens I bought with my D60 and though I would agree pretty well with the comments made so far it is good value for money and now tends to stay on the D60 which is currently my second body as a good "snapshot" setup. I tend to take it on hols as if it gets full of sand I have not lost a whole load or when I just want to sling a camera in the boot of the car.

[rick barclay]

I'd say about the only thing you can do is lower your shutter speed and
shoot still images. You want quality you have to pay for it.

[shiningstardv]

But does lowering the shutter speed and shooting still images still give you nice sharp images with good color? Or is this lense lacking there too?

[drisley]

For the kind of shooting I do it is as much use as a chocolate teapot.
:lol: 8)

[nosquare2003]

But does lowering the shutter speed and shooting still images still give you nice sharp images with good color? Or is this lense lacking there too?

The 28-135 is a good consumer lens. A lens will perform better with smaller aperture, say 2 stops below the largest aperture of the lens. (There will be a diffraction problem if the aperture is too small, however.) If you use a small aperture, the shutter speed will be longer and it will not be fast enough to freeze action. However, the image will be much sharper with good colour. This lens performs pretty well when it's stopped down.

The problem is that the Tamron 28-75 is a very good lens. It has larger aperture and good optics. It is not as good as my prime lenses wide open, IMHO, but the price is much competitive.

There's no contradiction to my previous post -- that IS is useful some times.