What do you think about the 28-135mm IS?

[stevekwiz]

I'm looking for a good general telephoto lens for a 1D that I just picked up used. I already have the 100-400mm IS and love it, and will probably also add a prime when I can afford it. What do you think about the 28-135mm IS? Do you love it, or is there another that I should stronger consider instead?

[gramps]

I really can say if it's good or bad but the odd thing I have noticed is that there is a BUNCH of them for sale on ebay..................almost make you wonder.

[tofuboy]

I like mine, it's a good general walk around lens. Your 100-400 might get along better with a 24-70 L though ^^;;

[MrChad]

If many dislike the 28-135 IS and the 24-70L f2.8 can be a bit pricey, why doesn't Canon make a (24)28-70 f4L?

[blackviolet]

i love the 28-135 is. it's not quite as sharp as the 85 1.8 (i think one of the sharpest non-L lenses around), but it's pretty close. the IS seems to add quite a few stops for low-light and the colour and contrast are fabulous. i would have like to have a bit faster (bigger) aperture for nicer bokeh and DOF separation.

i definitely recommend this lens - especially if you are on a budget.

[defordphoto]

The 28-135 is a fun lens to have. No, it's not the sharpest lens in the bag, but not every freaking lens has to be slice-your-eye sharp. The 28-135 is a middle-of-the-road lens that will fit most prosumer uses and is the best walkaround lens on the market, IMO.

[montyl]

The 28-135 IS lense is my main lense, yes if I went and spent the money for an 'L' series lense I may get sharper pictures, But from the lenses that I have in my bag the 28-135 is the one that stays on the camera. And out of the 6000 frames I have taken in the last year and a half, I would have to say that the 28-135 has been used for probably 4-5000 of them.

[Cadwell]

I don't like it - but then most of you knew that anyway ;)

For me it's not sharp enough, lacks contrast and is too slow. I regard it as the biggest waste of money I've made in photography to date. I have one and it never gets a place in my camera bag - if you give me a couple of hours I could probably find it... it's in a cupboard somewhere around here.

I replaced the focal lengths it covers it with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. Both those lenses outperform it by a long way.

[Jesper]

I love the 28-135 IS. The zoom range makes it very versatile as a walk-around lens and I've never been really disappointed with the sharpness - ofcourse it's best if you stop it down a bit, around f/8 it's quite sharp. The IS is also great.

The biggest con is that the build quality is not so great - plastic and it's a bit loose, and if you hang the camera around your neck with the lens pointing down, it will slowly zoom out to 135mm ("zoom creep"). Certainly not "L" build quality, but on the other hand that makes it also light - the 24-70 L is big and heavy!

[kfong]

To me, the 28-135mm IS is like a Swiss Army knife. It's best in its class, but full of compromises, and will never replace the single purpose tools. But when I go on vactions, I always lug along my 28-135mm and my Swiss knife. Sure I have primes and zooms, non-L and L's, longer reach and wider angles, just as I have drawers full of screw drivers and wrenches, but I have no intention of lugging those with me unless I'm on a photo trip or to fix the wife's stranded car :-)

Ken

[DReb-MO]

I replaced the focal lengths it covers it with the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f/4L. Both those lenses outperform it by a long way.

and that combination is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive.

[Cadwell]

and that combination is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive.

I never said otherwise, but then the original question didn't mention price.

If you want to get down to it though, The Tamron on it's own is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than the Canon EF 28-135mm and SIGNIFICANTLY better. Personally I'd rather just buy that and miss the coverage of a few mm in focal length than put up with the Canon EF 28-135mm lens.

[Boosting1Bar]

The 28-135 is a fun lens to have. No, it's not the sharpest lens in the bag, but not every freaking lens has to be slice-your-eye sharp. The 28-135 is a middle-of-the-road lens that will fit most prosumer uses and is the best walkaround lens on the market, IMO.

I agree.

[DReb-MO]

Personally I'd rather just buy that and miss the coverage of a few mm in focal length than put up with the Canon EF 28-135mm lens.

Sounds like you and this lens have had a personal disagreement... :)

[Adam Hicks]

Save a few bucks and try out the Tamron 2.8. Feels better built to me, obviously brighter, and a tack sharp lens. You can make up the 25mm loss by taking a step forward or backward :)

Adam

[billhercus]

I continue to be impressed with the combination of 28-135IS and a simple monopod.

I'm a novice with the pod but this picture is typical of the ability at 1/8th at f7.1 on the 300D

http://www.mayfieldghouse.freeserve.co.uk/Webpics/IceHouseSep041839Comp.jpg

[Batman2000]

I have it, It´s not perfect but I still like it a lot since it is a good all around lens. Solves most problems it faces quite well and the IS works great. You can check the lens performance chart in Popular Photography and this lens does very well.

[yenoram]

I bought this lens before my 28-70 2.8L and I still have it - sure it's not as sharp etc. as the L but it's a great general purpose lens and I couldn't bring myself to part with it. The only criticism I have is lens creep - that I could do without

[beech1]

I shoot weddings and used the 28-70L, which I still have, But I now use the 28-135 for 90% of the shots I take. If I need another lens, not often, it is the 70-200 L IS, which takes wonderful shots in low light churches. If the church is small I use the 28-135 and pump up the ISO to get 20th of a sec shutter speeds, which gives a very sharp image. I use it on the 10D and 20D with excellent results. I would recommend the lens.

Don Goings

[Radtech1]

I love mine. Excellent walk around lens, and for the cost / weight / obtrusiveness savings, I find this lens more usable that the 70-200 2.8 L.

I have had nothing but a great experience with the IS, and below is my best example.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27674&highlight=

PS - I have a fairly low limit of bandwidth. DL the big file if interested, but if not, then please dont. THX.

Rad

[WestFalcon]

I'm a big fan of the 28-135 IS. I think it's a lot of lens for the money. I used it for a 16x20 of a 1 year old. I shot large jpeg and asa 100. Probably at f11 if I recall. Talk about a breathtaking shot. It looked like it was done with a medium format camera. I use it a lot at weddings and am very pleased with it.

[Liang]

I have Canon 28-135IS but I do not satisfy. Because of the image not sharp and slow. I wonder how good is Tamron 28-75 f2.8.

[Mitchkitter]

i love mine.

[KennyG]

Stick it on a 10D, 1D MK-II and probably the 20D and it is soft and mushy. However, it does pass a not too bad on an original model 1D and the 28 end is more useful than on a 1.6 FOV camera.

Buy a used one and that way if you don't like it you won't have to take such a big hit. I have one sitting on the shelf here that hasn't seen a camera in over a year.

[Mark Kemp]

The 28-135 is a fun lens to have. No, it's not the sharpest lens in the bag, but not every freaking lens has to be slice-your-eye sharp. The 28-135 is a middle-of-the-road lens that will fit most prosumer uses and is the best walkaround lens on the market, IMO.

Yes - I agree good analysis

I usually carry it with a 17-40L and a 100-400 L in my bag, its not quite as sharp as the Ls (but not far off) and it gives a full range from 17 to 400 with only 3 lenses whereas you need 4 Ls to cover the same range. personally I reckon the small drop in sharpness is worth it for the weight saving.

[DamienB]

Judging from the remarks on here there is significant variation in the quality of these lenses. Mine is fine though I agree the build quality is cheap to say the least. The Canon Outlet on eBay shift loads of them, and as the normally sell refurb gear, I wonder if this indicates how many of these lenses are returned as being poor performers, fixed and then sold on again?

[kiwimichael]

Hi I also have a 28-135. When I had my old analog full-frame camera (EOS 3) this was the lens that I used most and I was very happy with the quality. Now that I have 10D with a crop factor of 1.6 my 28-135 does not cover the wide angle any more and has necessitated the purchse of a 17-40 L f4. A very good lens but without the reach, but due to the wide angle it is now my walk-around lens. I am seriously considering purchasing the EF-S 17-85 IS as a new walk-around lens (necessitates a 20D as well).

I'm wondering if the rise in number of second hand 28-135 lenses being offered for sale is due to it no longer providing the wide angle on D-SLR's with a 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor?

Michael

[swamprot]

When I bought my 10D I bought the 28-135.. Simply because I figured it would do what I want to do.. I have used it for walk around as well as a gazillion shots in studio.. With pretty good results actually. Granted it is a bit soft but most always acceptable especially in mid aperture range. But it is versitile friendly and I like a lot.. I got my 20D/kit lens now and also a Canon 50 f/1.4 USM. Looking to get 24-70 real soon.. But the 28-135 is still going to see plenty of action I think.

[swamprot]

I posted that reply back last October.. Since now I have my 24-70L I have really neglected my 28-135. Just can't get enough of it. Woohoo I love it to pieces.. If it was female I would marry it.. Hell maybe it is.. I'm in love..

I like the zoom range of the 28-135 and it really is a great lens but it ain't no L...

[ed rader]

i have mixed feelings about the 28-135 but no regrets that i sold mine. i hike a lot in the bright sun and the 28-135 was terrible for landscapes.

i bought the tamron 17-35 and it performs well in any light and of course it's fantastic in great light. ditto for the tamron 28-75...in fact even more so with this lens.

one thing the 28-135 does better than most lenses that i've owned is it is a great nominal macro lens.

another thing about the 28-135 is it is the only lens that i have owned that rattled ... had a very cheap feel to it.

i prefer faster and sharper glass even if that means i have to change lenses more often.

ed rader

[m3elmo]

i currently have the 28-135mm now. I'm thinking of switching to the 17-85 IS and purchasing the 70-200L glass. 28-135mm was supposed to be my walk around lens, but it's just not wide enough for me now....

[xuxu1]

Yes - I agree good analysis

I usually carry it with a 17-40L and a 100-400 L in my bag, its not quite as sharp as the Ls (but not far off) and it gives a full range from 17 to 400 with only 3 lenses whereas you need 4 Ls to cover the same range. personally I reckon the small drop in sharpness is worth it for the weight saving.
Same situation here except i carry them in my back pack because there isn´t enough space in my shoulder bag.

As for me... i like the 28-135IS a lot. Planning on getting a 24-70L in the near future. Even then i won´t give my 28-135IS away!

ED

[sony23]

I love mine, it only needs a little bit of usm and saturation,
this was with that lens unedited.


http://www.goodwoodrestoration.co.uk/photos/uppark.jpg

and

http://www.goodwoodrestoration.co.uk/photos/web.jpg

[Blue Deuce]

Usually if I purchase a quality item albeit a lens , fly rod , etc. and I dont get the performance I had anticipated I look inward. The majority of the time the lack of results rest with my inadequacies.

My 28-135 works just fine for the purpose it was purchased for, an all purpose walk around lens.

[ed rader]

>>Usually if I purchase a quality item albeit a lens , fly rod , etc. and I dont get the performance I had anticipated I look inward. The majority of the time the lack of results rest with my inadequacies.<<

i blamed myself too until i got better lenses. as soon as i got my first tamron i realized i was not as inadequate as the 28-135 made me out to be :cool: .

ed rader

[AjP]

I love mine, great walk around lense - not L, not 2.8 so why even to compare

[Edgar in ATL]

I have gotten good results with the 28-135 IS, certainly much better than the standard kit lens. I find it heavy and (physically) long as a walk-around lens. I generally use my Sigma 24 or Canon 85/1.8 as my walk-around lens depending on the anticipated opportunities.

[sony23]

Heavy? you want to carry the 70-200 L IS around but then again thats not to heavy.:) The 70-200 is my walkabout lens now.

Bruce

I have gotten good results with the 28-135 IS, certainly much better than the standard kit lens. I find it heavy and (physically) long as a walk-around lens. I generally use my Sigma 24 or Canon 85/1.8 as my walk-around lens depending on the anticipated opportunities.

[aliflack]

What you think of this lens surely depends on what other gear you have and how experienced you are??

If you've only used the kit lens that comes with the Drebel then its a significant upgrade. If you're used to the top end L's then sure, its gonna fare badly in comparison - wouldn't you be spitting nails if it didn't?!?

I've had one for over 6 months and find its build quality fine - good solid construction and I have never had zoom creep. Having recently tried out the 100-400 L and the 70-200 L I'm not sure I can feel any different in build quality (don't flame - its just my observation ;) )

If you've got the budget, by all means skip it and move on to the F 2.8 lenses that are out there...

That said, as another posted pointed out, IS allows you to get excellent motion blur shots of people/cars etc where use of tripods/monopods is not allowed.

[Saudidave]

I was torn between a 28-135IS and a Tamron 18-200 as a walkabout lens and thought that I might trade a bit of quality for some reach (with the Canon vouchers that came with my 350D they both amounted to the same price)

Before the final decision I got my local Jessops store to take 6 shots with each lens from the same point and at the same focal lengths.

Printed at 10 x 8 there wasn't that much difference but a crop of a 1" x 1" section printed at 10 x 8 revealed a massive difference. The Canon is still clear and sharp, the Tamron is blurred with significant CA.

The decision was a no brainer and I purchased the Canon a week ago. I've done a few hundred frames since and I'm well pleased. Not the sharpest lens for sure, but then the IS is great and it's not L money either.

I'd reccomend it but judge for yourself

[sony23]

To be honest the 28-135 isnt L glass, but saying that it comes close to my 70-200 L IS in build, like the other poster said.

sharpness I dont sharpen or add saturation to the 70-200 but the 28-135 sometimes you do have to apply some usm and saturation to come close to the 70-200 ( both these lens and camera were calibrated). Its no where near as fast as the 70-200 being a 2.8, but you can get some pretty good results from it, the picture in my last post was at 1/60 handheld and I have had it printed at 30 x 20 and everyone that has seen it cant believe how sharp it is, theres no way im ever going to part with it, its just to good a lens.
This is not a test but you see what I mean, you get what you pay for. but the 28-135 will give the 70-200 a run for your money.


both pictures are 100% crops, handheld, unedited, no post processing or sharpening done at all.

28-135
http://www.goodwoodrestoration.co.uk/photos/100.jpg

70-200 yes the car is moving fast as I said its not a test.


http://www.goodwoodrestoration.co.uk/photos/10070200.jpg

[sharp shooter]

HI GUYS!!!

I'm a long time lurker, first time poster on this board.

I finally signed up because felt compelled to post my 2 cents on this thread and warn you about this lens.

I've owned this lens for about hmmm..almost 2 years perhaps?? and JUST after the 1 year mark ( off course) the IS system started failing on it. It makes the lens emit this weird buzzing noise and it actually causes the image to shake.

The only way around it is to shut off the IS (or to send it in for repair I guess, which I haven't been able to afford, I'm sure it won't be cheap).'So i've been using it for the last 6 months without IS....expensive feature to have specially if you can't use it.

so you're saying... big deal....right?

well my friend Jeannette, a wedding photographer also started having the same IDENTICAL problem with HER 28-135 IS. Her's is only about 6 months old so she's in luck.

things that make you go .... hmmmmmmmmm......

I just figured I should all let you know about that....

BTW optically it's not bad....I would definitely say i've outgrown it though.

Cheers

sharp shooter

[SDJNJ]

I love my other "L" lens, but this is a great all around lens. I use it most of the time for weddings, portraits & even sporting events. The IS is great except when you forget to switch it off on a tripod/monopod.

[GSH]

Another lurker breaks cover :) Hello all.

I use the 28-235IS as a "walkabout" lens on the 20D. Obviously it's not an L and the price reflects it. I paid about £250 iirc..

However it does exactly what i need it to do...

Click for an example (http://www.pbase.com/geoff_hubbert/image/44593317/original.jpg)

[xuxu1]

I finally signed up because felt compelled to post my 2 cents on this thread and warn you about this lens.

I've owned this lens for about hmmm..almost 2 years perhaps?? and JUST after the 1 year mark ( off course) the IS system started failing on it. It makes the lens emit this weird buzzing noise and it actually causes the image to shake..... I just figured I should all let you know about that....
That´s odd. :confused:

My 28-135IS is now over 4 years old. Used it on a EOS 300 (analog body) and since then, after i sold the EOS 300, i use it on my 10D. Actually it´s my walk around lens.

.... and you know what?

Still works perfect all the way. :D :D :D

ED

[JasonW]

I have to agree with "xuxu1". My 28-135IS is also around 4 years old. It started on my EOS3 and has now migrated to a 20D. I have yet to have any problems with it. The IS does make some noise when activated but the image quality is fine...

[slin100]

I'm with Cadwell. I don't like my copy. My Tamron 28-75 blows it out of the water. The pictures posted all have a lack of crispness that I've come to despise on my images. It's not a bad lens per se. It's one of the best consumer-level lenses with IS.