28-135: Will I be happy?

[MDJAK]

With my 20d, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS. I use it mainly for high school sports.
I have the 100 2.8 macro which I use, obviously, for macro and portraiture.
I have the 17-40 (wish I got the 16-35 for the faster aperture) which I use when I go out and about, as it's the most practical lens I have for both ability to carry around and general use out and about in Manhattan street shooting.

Santa (my wife) got me the 28-135 IS for Christmas. It's wrapped under the tree. Am I going to be happy with it? It was only 400 at B&H. Should I have gone for the 28-70 instead? I know it's a handful to carry.

One more thing, while I'm on a roll. I love the "putty" color L lenses. Why doesn't the 28-70 come that way?

[tim]

Here's an interesting review: http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

I've read the 28-135's a great walkaround lens, especially with the IS. I probably wouldn't get one myself, too much overlap with the Tamron, but as a consumer walkabout lens it sounds good. If you have L glass I don't know if you'll be satisfied... but B&H have a good return policy... let's just hope your wife does too ;)

[ScottE]

I have the 17-40 and 70-200/2.8 (non IS - IS wasn't invented when I bought that lens). I find the 28-135 to be very useful with that combination. I use it as a general walk around/casual shooting lens because the zoom range and IS makes it handy for those situations.

I find the quality comparable to the 17-40 on the over-lapping portion of the zoom ranges, especially at f/8 or smaller apertures. Quality is not quite up to the standard of the 70-200 at the over-lapping portion of that range, but is certainly more than adquate for casual shooting. This is noticeable if you shoot tripod mounted with cable release and mirror-lock-up, but not so much so for small apertures or hand held shots.

I consider the 28-135 to be one of the best non L zoom lenses in the Canon line.

Other than marketing, I have no idea why Canon makes any of their lenses that off-white. I certainly don't consider it an advantage for wildlife photography where you don't want to be noticed. I suppose it looks good on the sideline at sports matches if you want to show off how many people are using your equipment.

[pcasciola]

The reason some of Canon's L-lens are white is to cut down on heat buildup inside the lens during outdoor shooting in bright sunlight. That's why you mainly see it on the big prime L lenses.

As far as the 28-135mm, I wasn't all that impressed with it on digital bodies, but it seems to be a great film lens. A friend of mine bought in a black and white he took with it about two months ago, I think with a 7E, and it was among the nicest shots I have ever seen. When he told me he used the 28-135mm I didn't believe him at first.

[Mitch]

Keep the 28-135 IS. It is a great lens. It is better than other medium level lenses. Because of the IS and USM, you will be able to fool around with shutter speed and fstops effectively and get more shots. It takes very sharp photos. It is a robust lens. When you use it as a walk around lens, you will be very, very happy with it. The focal range is incredible while maintaining excellent quality at the upper and lower end of the ranges. Before I got my L Glass lenses, I (and many other photogs) used it as the primary lens for wedding shoots. If you watch your depth of field effectively (i.e., keep f-stop at 5.6 or above) and use adequate shutter speeds you will get absolutely tack sharp photos with excellent color. I use my L glass now that I have it, but to tell the truth, the L glass only improves things very marginally. The real way to improve shots is by rigorously controlling flash exposure, depth of field, and framing. That's what improved my pics immensely, not using L glass instead of the 28-135.

[DocFrankenstein]

Will I be happy?

The power of consumerism compells you!
The power of consumerism compells you!
The power of consumerism compells you!
The power of consumerism compells you!
The power of consumerism compells you!
The power of consumerism compells you!

[Jesper]

I don't know if you're going to be happy with it.
I can only tell you that I'm happy with my 28-135 IS USM.
Merry christmas! :)

[MDJAK]

I love this forum. You guys (gals?) are extremely knowledgeable and helpful. Your responses are also well written.

Hey Doc, consumerism?

[HKFEVER]

I use to have this len, and replaced it with 24-70mm f/2.8L. And I miss it.

28-135 is very good as walk around len especially with the IS feature.

[evilenglishman]

i bought it and haven't used it since getting the 17-40, 70-200. The quality isn't comparable to L on a digital.

[Jon, The Elder]

Well you are, as usual, getting all kinds of responses.
I have it - I like it - it made me a lot of money this year !

www.pbase.com/jpferguson

Most taken with 28/135 !!

[alan sh]

I have one and I like it. That and my Sigma 12-24 are what I use most.

Alan

[DocFrankenstein]

Hey Doc, consumerism?
Whooops... I forgot to put up a bunch of smilies. :)

If I buy this lens, will it give me eternal happniess? :D:D:D ;)

BUT: my experience shows it will :lol:

[Saturn]

Hello:

I purchased my 28-135 about a month after they were released (how ever many years ago that was). I use it commercially and for weddings and find that although it is not as sharp as the L's, most will not notice and it's versatility, low pricepoint and "IS" make up for it's optical shortcomings. I've shot with it in heavy rains that got the inside of the lens fogged. Just blew hot air thru it and 5 minutes later, it worked like a charm. I've shot with it in extreme cold/heat, and in very dusty, sandy environments. It's never given up and when it does (some day), I'll simply buy another, as it's a very affordable lens!! It's only drawback? Now that I'm shooting digital (100% the last 2.5 years), 28mm is not quite wide enough for many situations. (Got the Tokina 17 for that.)

Thanks.

[MDJAK]

Well, Santa delivered it today. I'm a-chargin' my batree now and will shoot away today. Maybe I'll get a good shot or two.

My son (a college freshman got the S70 for christmas. Doesn't even know what a megapixel is. Oy vey.) My 13 year old daughter got the Canon Elura 70 camcorder. Can't wait to watch her movies. Eeegads.

[brunzie]

I love mine and use it at every wedding. At f8 or f11, I have made gorgeous 16x20's with this lens...the detail on the 16x20's was phenomenal.....looked like medium format. I shot at f11 at asa 100. I love this lens in spite of what some people say about it. I think that it is the best buy in a Canon zoom lens...less than $400....the range of this lens is superb.....buy it ,you will like it

[MDJAK]

You are righty-right. It is a great lens. I've taken some pics here at our christmas celebration at relatives' house and immediately photochopped them and printed them on my little portable canon 220 dye sub. They are coming out great. Nice zoom range too.

[Jetmech1]

I have had it for a couple of weeks now. It is a very nice lens, very versatile. I also have the 75-300 with IS and it seems to be a good lens also. Trying to decide which lens to get next.

[MDJAK]

I want the 300 2.8, but a new car might be more obtainable.

[ScottE]

Both my kids were home for Christmas today for the first time in years so we took the 20D, 28-135, tripod and flash out to the yard to take some family portraits in the new fallen snow. I used the delayed shutter release so I could get in the pictures too and the whole family had fun trying to get everyone and the dog in position, looking at the camera and smiling at the same time (OK, the dog wouldn't smile).

I printed some 8x10's for family albums and was very happy with the resolution and colour. The only problem is my wife wants me to get a softer lens. She doesn't like the fine detail of every wrinkle. I will have to apply Photoshop and make a softer copy for her.

Other than being too sharp the 28-135 is an adequate portrait lens. The main problem is that it does not have a large enough aperture to blur the background, if that is what you want to do. (Today I wanted the snowy background in focus.)

I am going to make a 12 x 18" print of one of the shots to see just how much resolution there is. Judging from the 100% view it should be very good.

[Mark Kemp]

I think its a case of the last 10% of the performance costs all the money.

The 28-135 IS is a very good lens, its not as sharp as an L lens but that doesn't mean it is a bad lens - its still acceptably sharp for most people and certainly as good or better than most things in the same price range.

The increase in sharpness and the wider aperture represented by the 24-70 f2.8 L means that this is an extremely good lens, but it comes at extremely good lens money. That extra bit of performance adds a great deal to the price.

It is really up to you, you won't be disspointed with the 28-135, unless your personal standards or requirements (especially sharpness) are very high or you need the wide apertures.

[samdring]

Agree with those who think this is a very good lens for the money but as a walkabout lens, zoom creep is a nuisance

[RU64]

I am a novice, using a 28-135 with a D300. I took them to some college football games this autumn and was very pleased with the results. My shots were taken from my seat in the 41st row. Some were later cropped, just to show players at the line of scrimmage.

This month, I've taken the camera and that lens to college basketball games, and have shot from the eighth row, free-throw line extended. For such fast action indoor/flashless shooting, the aperture/ISO/shutter speed adjustments are, of course, much more critical. It would be nice if the lens were faster, but ISO increase to 800 seems to make up for that. I still have a lot more experimenting to do with that. It would help to bring my laptop to the games to compare results on a screen that's larger than the LCD on the D300, but that's a lot of equipment to haul to a game and keep in a cramped seat. So, each game I try new settings. Fortunately, it's a long season!

[montyl]

I have the 28-135 IS lense and it is my primary lense. I think that for an everyday general purpose lens you will be very happy with it

[Mitch]

One other thing. While I do have L glass: 17-40, 24-70, 70-200, every time I pick up one of these lenses to use, I always, always worry that I am going to need the fantastic focal range that my 28-135 has. That's why I keep the 28-135 around my neck when using my L glass. The L glass gets only MARGINALLY better shots SOMETIMES, not most of the time.

[tim]

I'm seriously considering this lens as a walk around lens, to replace (or suppliment) my Tamron 28-75. My only worry is that it's only F3.5-5.6, so it's pretty slow. I have the 300D so I don't like to use above ISO 800, to try to prevent noise. Do you guys find the slow lens to be a problem, compared to the Tamron which is F2.8 across the range? I know the Canon has IS which is meant to be worth 1.5-2 stops, but in practice can you take handheld shots in lowish light? I can reasonably well with the Tamron.

[Sharon P Johnson]

When I got my Digital Rebel, I could only afford one lens. So based upon a friend's recommendation, I bought the 28-135. Most of my shots are taken with that or my 100mm macro.

The detail with the 28-135 is very good, but I use the 100mm macro for closeups. I even have a photo where a butterfly looks like it is smiling.

My dream is to purchase a 400 mm, but that is after a badly needed new car... My i9900 printer arrived today and it prints beautifully.

[tim]

Can anyone comment on the 28-135's low light performance when doing hand held? I'd like to compare it to the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 if possible.

[alan sh]

Thats more a function of the camera than the lens.

I have taken long (30m) flash photos in true dark with manual focussing and they look OK.

[tim]

I don't use the flash most of the time, I use wide apertures and longer shutter speeds. The F2.8 Tamron does ok like that.

[Jesper]

Can anyone comment on the 28-135's low light performance when doing hand held? I'd like to compare it to the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 if possible.
Well, the 28-135 isn't the fastest lens in the world (f/3.5-5.6) but the image stabilizer works great, so you can still get good hand-held photos with very slow shutter speeds.

[sharky]

I had the 28-135 but sold it in order to get the 70-200L (f4). Looking back, I think this is one of the worst photographic mistakes I've made, having missed dozens of shots that the 28-135 would have helped me get. When I need a telephoto for a fast grab shot, it's usually when the 17-40 is on the camera, and when I need to go wider the 70-200 is usually on the body.

Most recently I was doing some shots at a Christmas function and found the two lens set up very frustrating. For group shout the 17-40 was needed but for portraits I had to switch to the 70-200. Not a huge deal, but if I'd kept the 28-135 I could have kept the flow going without having to switch back and forth, and the IS would have been nice.

Speaking of IS, one of the most interesting shots I've taken recently was a street scene here in Melbourne - just afternoon commuters rushing for the trains and buses. However, the IS allowed me to drop the shutter speed down to about 1/15, meaning that the buildings and other objects were sharp while the rushing commuters motion blurred nicely.

I hate second guessing myself, but I can see myself going back and getting another one of these lenses - you never know how good something is until it;s gone!

[Cadwell]

Of course it's all relative. I happen to hate the 28-135mm lens with a passion. I find it soft, lacking in contrast and too slow for what I want to use it for. I've never yet got an image that I like from it. I confess, I haven't tried much recently as the thing has spent most of the last year sitting on a shelf. I've always considered my purchase of this lens to be an expensive mistake and in my opinion, it can't hold a candle to any of my other lenses.

p.s. Before anyone suggests it I don't "have a bad copy". I've tried three.

[blackviolet]

you must have had 3 bad copies ;) :p

[Cadwell]

you must have had 3 bad copies ;) :p

:o Why didn't I think of that? :lol:

[nosquare2003]

Santa (my wife) got me the 28-135 IS for Christmas.

Glad that you enjoy this lens because it's from your Santa.

My wife has never bought me any lens, filters nor similar things. It's only me who buy her these things and I feel happy!

[cc10d]

Tim,
I have both lens. The 28-75 is a sharper lens than the 28-135, it isn't a quantum better, but as good as any I have tried. The 28-135 is IMHO one of the best non L zoom lenses. So for its range it is quite good and sharpens well in Photoshop. It obviously is not a fast lens. The IS makes possible pictures in low light as long as there is not subject movement. I use the 28-75 a lot as it is a faster lens, and even when flash does become needed it can operate with less. For range above 75, I use the 100-400 when doing wildlife type things. Longer shots, very sharp for a zoom. Here the IS is essential for the handheld longer reach shots. Its a bit large and WHITE and probably not the lens to use if you don't want noticed. The 28-135 is a bit less conspicuous.
Another lens that works as well with a bit more reach is the 70-300 DO IS. Again not a fast lens but does as well as the 28-135 or better in quality and still is compact and light. The IS is very good. My wife uses this lens because of its good quality optic and light weight. Just some thoughts. The 28-135 is a good all round range for keeping the same lens on the camera without need to change often. But your 28-75 is faster, sharper, smaller, and lighter. Just how much the range increase with the 28-135 would help is only something determined by your needs. I do intend to keep my 28-135 in the bag . There are times I don't want to carry 2 lens and the 75 is just a bit short. Chuck

[tim]

Thanks for that Chuck, that's a lot of useful information. For a lot of photos I take I stop down to somewhere between F4 and F8, depending on the shot, so the slower lens shouldn't matter - and the IS would definitely help. If money weren't an issue i'd probably get it now... but given its price I might think about it and wait until my credit card recovers from the camera and last 4 lenses ;)

That 70-300 DO IS looks great, but it's around $1K IIRC.

[cc10d]

tim said-
*wait until my credit card recovers from the camera and last 4 lenses "

sure can understand that, My collection of lens did not all appear in my bag at once!! It is a collection over time.