Would you buy 1 or both?

[OceanView]

I have an opportunity to purchase either or both of these lens for a Canon EOS DSLR at a reduced price. Unfortunatley, I have a limited budget and only want to buy what is necessary. I do need a good zoom so I will buy the EF 75-300mm lens.


EF 28-135mm, F/3.5-5.6 IS USM
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...49&modelid=7337 (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337)

AND/OR

EF 75-300mm, F/4-5.6 IS USM
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/co...50&modelid=7342 (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7342)

besides the greater zoom capability of the 75-300mm, is there a hugh difference in these two lens in the real world?
I mostly want to use it for landscapes and portrait photos.

I am leaning on buying the 75-300mm lens but not sure if I should buy the second one as well.

Thanks in Advance.

[weemannie]

Wouldn't the 28-135 be better generally, for landscapes?

[nitsch]

What camera are you using?

The 28-135 is recommended by a lot of people, the 75-300 can produce some good images but is considered by many to be a little soft at 300mm and the AF is slow. Other things to bear in mind, 28mm is not that wide on a 1.6x crop sensor if you want to do landscapes. Do you have the kit lens too? If so you could use this for wide angle.

[OceanView]

What camera are you using?

The 28-135 is recommended by a lot of people, the 75-300 can produce some good images but is considered by many to be a little soft at 300mm and the AF is slow. Other things to bear in mind, 28mm is not that wide on a 1.6x crop sensor if you want to do landscapes. Do you have the kit lens too? If so you could use this for wide angle.

It's for a 20D.
I don't have a kit lens.

[lmelendez]

I would get the 70-200 f4 L instead of the 75-300.

Leo.

[rssfhs]

EF 28-135mm, F/3.5-5.6 IS USM has been my main lens so far and I'm pretty happy with it. You can see my gallery here: http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?AcctID=8411

[tim]

Of those i'd get the 28-135. If I had a wider choice i'd get the Tamron 28-75, which I own, love, and use for 90% of my photos.

[Hellashot]

Wouldn't the 28-135 be better generally, for landscapes?

On a film or full frame dSLR yes, but not on a 1.6x dSLR. You'll get the field of view of a 45mm which isn't wide at all.

[thomasrhee]

I'd skip both and get a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and a Canon 70-200/4L. Higher potential image quality and less overlap in coverage although you lose a bit on the long end.

[weemannie]

On a film or full frame dSLR yes, but not on a 1.6x dSLR. You'll get the field of view of a 45mm which isn't wide at all.

Yes you're right of course, but given that Oceanview is specific in his choice of lenses, I think the 28-135 is better for landscapes.

Its a whole new game if we are free to choose our favourite landscape lenses!:D :D

[mgash]

28-105 will be a much versitle lense. Telephoto lenses are fun, but not used as much. Or, forget this post and get both!!!!!!

[Citizensmith]

If you have no other lenses I'd get the 28-135. I wouldn't use the 75-300 for either portraits or landscapes, particularly once its on a small frame digital. The 28-135 will be OK for portraits and landscapes although you can do better. It'll be a good stepping off point though so you can figure out what you really need later.

Secondly, the 28-135 is about as good as Canon consumer level zooms get. The 75-300 is about as bad as Canon consumer telephoto zooms get, although the IS saves it some. Basically, get the 28-135 and save your money on the 75-300.

[OceanView]

I'd skip both and get a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and a Canon 70-200/4L. Higher potential image quality and less overlap in coverage although you lose a bit on the long end.

I have been reading alot about these 2 lenses.
However, do they have the IS feature?
If not, is it minor enough that it won't make too much of a difference?

[Jon]

No, they don't. Will it make a difference? What conditions are you shooting in? For the 28-75 mm range, the only IS options are the 17-85 EF-S and the 28-135 EF, both of which are pretty slow. Canon's 24-70 f/2.8 L isn't IS either. For the 70-200, IS is only available on the f/2.8 at about 3x the price. If you need the extra 3 stops or so (f/4 to f/2.8 and 2 stops from IS improving hand-holdable speed) very often, it will make a difference. Otherwise, that's a big chunk of change.

[VegasGeorge]

90mm more or less is considered optimal for portraits. Wider angle lenses are generally preferred for landscapes. So, as between the two lenses you're looking at, the 28-135 would be the logical choice if you want one lens for both applications.

[raylks]

For landscape and portrait, definitely go for 28-135mm IS. 70-300mm is too long for landscape.

[cc10d]

I would echo Thomasrhee, "I'd skip both and get a Tamron 28-75/2.8 and a Canon 70-200/4L. Higher potential image quality and less overlap in coverage although you lose a bit on the long end." If you can get both lenses.

If you cannot get both lenses, the best all round lenses are the 28-135 IS or the 17-85 IS. For the buck it is hard to beat the 28-135. I have used it a lot. It gets one into the telephoto area with an effective 216 at the 135 end. It isn't very wide on the other end but it sure is still wider than the 75-300 would be. The 70-300 DO is a lot better lense but is quite spendy, and not the optical quality of the 70-200L. The 70-200L with Canon 1.4x would get you close to the 300 with a higher quality lens and still f5.6 effective. I also have the Tamron 28-75 and use it a lot. It has lessened my use of the 28-135 since I got it. It does not have the reach of the 28-135 so it does not totally displace it. It does provide the option of controlling the background bokeh and lower light focusing that the slower lenses do not have the ability to do. I like the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR DI LD Aspherical, It is the only non-Canon lens I use. If I cannot carry more than one lens, I choose the lens that seems best for the occasion, and often it is the 28-135 due to its wider range.

[Wavy C]

Hi cc10d - it's interesting to hear from someone who has both the 28-135 IS and the 28-75 Tamron.

I've borrowed a 28-135 a number of times and have generally been very impressed with it. So much so that I'm thinking of buying one as I need a good walk around lens. Focus is fast and silent. I've also found that for 'real world' pictures it seems just as sharp as my 50mm f1.8, regardless of what test charts etc may indicate. The IS is a great feature, and I've taken sharp handheld pictures with speeds as low as 1/4 sec.

I'm also considering the Tamron 28-75mm, which I've never even seen let alone used. Like the f2.8, but as I'd be mainly using a walkaround lens for times when I only want to carry a single lens, the extra 135mm reach of the Canon lens is also tempting.

Do you notice much difference in image quality between these two lenses? Also, is the Tamron about the same physical size as the Canon lens? This is important as I want a reasonably easy to carry lens when, for example, I am travelling. It would be great if you could post a picture of the two sitting side by side.

best regards

[cc10d]

Wavy C:

The Tamron SP AF28-75 F2.8 XR DI LD Aspherical is smaller than the Canon 28-135. I think most people find the optical quality of it higher than the Canon 28-135. Some say it is nearly as good optically as the Canon 24-70 L 2.8. I find it a very good performer optically and I Love the ability to use the f2.8. It does not have full time manual focus. You must switch the lens to the desired focus type. Manual or Auto. I think it is also a little lighter in weight than the Canon (either of them) I suspect the build quality is not as robust as the Canon, but with reasonable care I don't see any problems with it. The 28-135 has good quality optical performance especially when stopped down 1 or 2 stops. At f 8, I suspect it would be hard to see much difference between all 3 of these lenses. I do find that I can usually find a way to carry a smaller tele when I want to use the 28-75 as the primary lens. But that does require changing lenes for the longer shots. So inter the 28-135 to cover med tele without lens change.

[steibeldj]

I have the 28-135 IS. Excellent lens. IS is a big plus. Lens is not expensive. Not too big. Not too heavy. All around a great buy. Many of us on this forum are waiting for a really good medium sized black 70-300mm lens with f2.8. for under $1000. Canon is sure to put something out like this. If you do not care what attention you draw to yourself with the 100-400L or 70-200L and can afford it, then they are much better than the 75-300 IS. I have that lens too and I still like it, especially for under $450. The IS and focus are slow however and not great for action shots.

[cc10d]

The 70-300 f4.5-5.6 DO IS is a small lens for its range. The optics as good or better than the 28-135 and the IS is super. It uses 58mm filters and is black, a perfect attract no attention lens. Unfortunately it is more than the $1000, and not f2.8. Not all our desires are yet packaged as we wish. but I like this lens, it does not wear out your arms or neck and has a good reach with fairly good quality. Some say that it it soft at 300, well most zooms are not their best at the extreme end. This lens provides a file that can be treated in PS, a bit of sharpening and maybe contrast.
This final product is very good. Lots of smaller lenses do not respond as well to PS. I think that the inherent resolution is there in this lens, just not as snappy as some L's. PS can put that in.
FWIW, that is my experience. PS: it is about the same size as the 28-135 just not quite as large a diameter.