28-135mm IS

[Steve Parr]

So, while on the continuing search for the next lens, I happened upon the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Not a bad price, and it would likely do pretty good for a general “kickin’ around town” lens, as it’s got a good variance in focal length.

My questions:

Does anyone have this, and would you recommend it? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?

What would be the equivalent f-stop, on a non-IS lens, with this one wide open with the IS?

Given the lenses I already have (see the list in my signature), would it be a better idea to horde my pennies until I can spring for the 70-200mm F/4L (which would be in about a month)?

Appreciate the assist…


Steve

[Cadwell]

Does anyone have this, and would you recommend it? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?


Yes, I have it.
No, I wouldn't recommend it.
I like nothing about it.
I dislike the poor optics.

Buy a Tamron 28-75mm XR Di instead. http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78697 or save your money for the 70-200 f/4L

[Dante King]

Steve I have one of these an enjoy it for a kick around. I think this is one of canons best lenses in th eprice range. I enjoy the IS and 28-135 range. Great for shooting the kids at parks where my 70-300 is to long. I would recommend this lens in a second. I love the usm. Dont really like the f/range is its a tad slow, but IS helps a bit in low light for some situations. Funny thing is that I have been debating selling my 28-135 for a tamron 28-70. For now I am pretty happy with the 28-135 as the longer reach is pretty cool.

I think the 70-200 is a totaly different bird in reach but I dont know, FOR ME if the 70-200 f/4 I reciently tried is such a signifigant difference that I would go for it. Now the 70-200 2.8 variants? In a heartbeat.

[steibeldj]

Longer reach and IS are a big plus for this sub $500 lens. It is a great value if you only have $500 to spend on a lens.

I will admit, after getting my 24-70 L I have been disappointed with the pciture sharpness, but that has to do with shutter speed. THe IS is definitely not the 70-300 DO IS generation that's for sure.

That being said, I'm not going to sell it until Canon has a replacement for this range and size. (Hopefully just change over to the new IS)

[ed2day]

I like my 28-135. It's as sharp as my L lenses stopped down. Nice color, but not up to the L's. Very useful range. IS is nice. Very versatile. A bit soft wide open. The 70-200/f4 is a better lens in every aspect (except IS!) but I find it's range much less useful to me.

[condyk]

I agree with Cadwell, tho' maybe I didn't dislike my copy as much as that! I replaced it with the Tamron 28-75 and that is decent for the price. The Canon L is sharper but I wasn't so keen on the f4. I'm only really interested in f2.8 or faster these days and would opt for the SIgma 70-200 f2.8 based on my experience with that, rather than the Canon L. That would fit nicely with what you nhave I think. The IS feels like a sideways move rather than a step forward.

[Wavy C]

I have a friend who owns a 28mm-135mm and I'm fortunate to be able to borrow it. Stopped down to about f8 or so, most people would find it difficult to tell the difference between this and, say, a good 50mm prime. I really like it.

The great range makes it very versatile - ideal for holidays or occassions such a weddings, where you only want to carry one lens.

[tbfoto]

I have it...I love it ...mine is very sharp. I do recommend it.


Tom

[Paul Carpentier]

I sure love mine! It has been my main workhorse, responsible for 3/4 of my photos (next to my EF 70-300 DO IS and my EF-S 10-22, not to mention the kit EF-S 18-55). The only thing - I just got the Sigma 18-200 DC to replace my kit lens and I've been very favorably impressed (definitely for the money). In outside vacation conditions those two will probably start to compete. In lower light, nothing beats the IS-derived flexibility!

Here are a few comparisons to make you doubt ;) ; http://www.pixagogo.com/0280105208

Paul

[Steve Parr]

Thanks for the replies, everyone. It sure seems like the responses capture both ends of the "approval spectrum".

I'm anxious to get my first blast of L-glass and, when I do, it'll be either the 70-200mm f/4 or the 17-40mm f/4. I lean away from the 17-40mm, though, due to the 20-35mm I already have; it seems almost redundant.

The reason I'm looking at the 70-200mm is, well, the QCL 70-300mm ain't impressin' me much, and I rarely need the reach of the 300mm. And, as a bonus, the 70-300mm would make a fine pool toy.

BUT... as if all that wasn't enough, I'm always on the lookout for short, fast lenses, as they lend themselves towards shooting in dimly lit clubs. Well, I found one.

That'll be another thread, though...

Steve

[Glyyde]

I have this lens and love it.... the IS function are really very useful.... I could take shots at 0.6s without camera shake

[ScottE]

I have this lens and like it for the purpose I got it for. I use it as a general all purpose and travel lens. It has good enough quality for most purposes.

Occasionally I get a shot that I want to blow up for a big enlargement. Sometimes I am sorry I did not use my 105 mm macro lens if maximum resolution is desirable.

If maximum resolution on big enlargements is your objective, this is not a good choice. For most other purposes it it more than adequate.

Scott

[Jesper]

My questions:

Does anyone have this, and would you recommend it? What do you like about it? What do you dislike about it?

What would be the equivalent f-stop, on a non-IS lens, with this one wide open with the IS?

Given the lenses I already have (see the list in my signature), would it be a better idea to horde my pennies until I can spring for the 70-200mm F/4L (which would be in about a month)?I have it and I like it!

What I like: Never had any complaints about sharpness with this lens. It's sharper than some much more expensive lenses I have. The IS works great and gives you up to about 2 stops more handholdability. The zoom range is very nice, I use this lens mainly when I'm shooting events on the street for example, when I want to shoot portraits as well as wider angle shots, and I don't have time to switch lenses. Also, the lens is not too big and heavy.

What I dislike: The build quality is not great - plastic, the lens wobbles a bit when you shake it (and this seems to be normal for this lens), it has "zoom creep" (when you hang the camera round your neck with the lens facing down, it slowly zooms out to 135mm).

About waiting for the 70-200 f/4 L: I can't tell, because I don't know what your shooting habits are. Do you need a telezoom or a standard range zoom? The lenses have different purposes.

[giantod]

Not a good lens for me. I have owned this but i haven't love it.

Also the IS not very useful. I'ts much better a lens with an aperture of 2.8.

Don't buy it.

[Barb42]

http://www.digitalphotographicsociety.com/images/barbsmith.html

I took these with the 28-135 IS. It works for day to day use.