are there any fans of ( 28-135 ) ? you don`t mention it here

Slow, average IQ, old IS, weird range on a crop and very over priced compared to the newer, faster 17-50mm type lenses out there ... what's to like?

gosox13 wrote in post #8360504
Folks, I just got this lens for my XSi and am disappointed with the first set of shots taken with it--close up shots of my grandkids playing outdoors. The pics were on the soft side and some were definitely out of focus. I had the camera set on P mode and it was early evening, but I thought light was adequate; even some shots with the flash on were not great. I did a little research and found a number of recommendations saying that this lens needs to be stepped down 1 or 2 stops to get good image quality. How do I do this? Use aperture priority and set it for 2 stops down from whatever f stop the camera was reading in P mode? And then adjust the ISO up to avoid a slow shutter speed? I understand the concepts somewhat, but am not a photo pro. Thanks

GoSox,

Yes, if I remember correctly -- I haven't shot with this lens in a few months -- the longer range (85-135mm) did suffer from softness when shot wide open.

FYI, I don't remember the lens being *great* in low-light conditions. Adequate for the price, for sure. This is where the L's will typically shine over the mid-level lenses, particularly in the AF department...but that's why the 24-105 L costs 3x more!

I haven't followed too much with the XSi high-ISO performance. I believe it maxes out at 1600....which means you probably want to stick to 800 as much as possible (for decent shots).

AV mode would be a good one to experiment with, if you're trying to experiment with ISO and shutter speed.

condyk wrote in post #8361171
Slow, average IQ, old IS, weird range on a crop and very over priced compared to the newer, faster 17-50mm type lenses out there ... what's to like?

I'm with you....until "very over priced"! Very over priced compared to....what?? The 18-55mm? Possibly....but the build and AF IQ of the 28-135 is *noticeably* better.

I agree it's not the best lens for regular 1.6x usage. But I still say it's one of the best "tweener" zooms you can easily acquire for around $300 -- it's a good lens that will take you some good pictures.

Of course the 17-55 and 24-105 are better lenses....but for some people the extra 3x in cost is totally not worth it.

BeritOlam wrote in post #8361369
I'm with you....until "very over priced"! Very over priced compared to....what?? The 18-55mm? Possibly....but the build and AF IQ of the 28-135 is *noticeably* better.

I agree it's not the best lens for regular 1.6x usage. But I still say it's one of the best "tweener" zooms you can easily acquire for around $300 -- it's a good lens that will take you some good pictures.

Of course the 17-55 and 24-105 are better lenses....but for some people the extra 3x in cost is totally not worth it.

I got mine for $250! I'll try it out for a while, and move up to the 24-105 if needed, but it gives me time to save the cash, and decide for myself on zoom range.

Edbee wrote in post #8344863
I mainly use my 28-135 on a 40D and am very pleased with the results. I do much people photography and it does a very good job. I compared photos using the the 24-105 and the 28-135 and neither I nor the salesperson could see any noticeable difference so purchased the 28-135.

You must have a better copy of the 28-135 than I had. I struggled with it for six months before dumping it in favor of the 24-105. The difference in sharpness is like night and day. Personally, I wouldn't recomend the 28-135 to anyone, but others have had better luck.

This lens is looked down on by many people because it became a "kit" lens. Therefore, it was not fit to be used in polite company!

For those of us who really don't care what other people think of our gear, we don't mind being seen in public with this lens.

It is an excellent range for full frame cameras, and I often use it as a walk around lens.
Not as sharp as a 100mm macro or a 70-200 zoom, but perfectly acceptable shots can be had with this lens if you use it properly. Mine might be an exceptional copy, but I consider it to be a lot of lens for the money.

Unless you need the sharpness required for huge prints, this lens will do a nice job for up to 8 x 10 prints. Sure, it has its limitations, but it is unrealistic to expect perfection for the price that this lens sells for.

BeritOlam wrote in post #8361369
I'm with you....until "very over priced"! Very over priced compared to....what?? The 18-55mm? Possibly....but the build and AF IQ of the 28-135 is *noticeably* better.

I agree it's not the best lens for regular 1.6x usage. But I still say it's one of the best "tweener" zooms you can easily acquire for around $300 -- it's a good lens that will take you some good pictures.

Of course the 17-55 and 24-105 are better lenses....but for some people the extra 3x in cost is totally not worth it.

It's pretty clear the 'compared to what' from my post - over here the cheapest I see this lens new at this time is £380. I can get one of the 17-50 2.8 type zoom much cheaper. And they're much better unless you want 135mm. Even the 28-105 II is better optically. i just don't see the point. Maybe you can get them cheap SH ... and that's clearly because no one wants them.

condyk wrote in post #8363461
It's pretty clear the 'compared to what' from my post - over here the cheapest I see this lens new at this time is £380. I can get one of the 17-50 2.8 type zoom much cheaper. And they're much better unless you want 135mm. Even the 28-105 II is better optically. i just don't see the point. Maybe you can get them cheap SH ... and that's clearly because no one wants them.

It could be things are different this side of the pond. A Tamron 17-50mm runs you brand-new about $450 in the US. The 28-135mm runs you about $400 brand-new.

However, with the XXD kits, the cost of the lens (in combo with the camera) drops to only about $200 (net). A lot of people are finding out they can buy the kit, keep the camera, and then sell the lens off *brand new* for about $300-350 on Ebay. [Just check sometime]. If nobody wanted them, then why are people able to turn a $100 profit on these lenses?

That's all mean when I say it's a good value lens. You can either keep it for $200, in which case it's a pretty good 'tweener' lens for the cost. I mean, what other zoom lens can you recommend for $200 or less? The 75-300mm?

Now, would I pay full new costs ($400 US) for this old-boy? Probably not. But then I was never suggesting one should!

I know Ken Rockwell is seen as an armchair hack by some....but he just this week reviewed the 28-135 (on a FF) and gave it two big thumbs up!

Mine stays on the camera 90% of the time. The only "issue" I have is it's not wide enough for my tastes. Other than that I love it.

Used mine on my xti for a long time, but it was a great general walk around. Though I did wish it was a bit wider at times. I made some really nice photos with that lens! Now it sits on my shelf =( cause I love my Ls. I look at it sometimes =)

condyk wrote in post #8361171
Slow, average IQ, old IS, weird range on a crop and very over priced compared to the newer, faster 17-50mm type lenses out there ... what's to like?

I own this len's, and agree 100%.

It was a "meh" lens to say the least. Odd range, slow aperture, even the USM was on the slower side, nasty 6-sided bokeh, barrel wobble, zoom creep, old IS... should I continue?

55 L is too short either way so need more

nureality wrote in post #8352299
I have a 28-135IS and I can't say I love it. I find its range is kinda weird on a crop, while near perfect for FF/film. On Crop its not wide enough on the wide end to be a viable walkaround lens. And at its long end its just too slow and quite soft. IS helps, but not enough to be the deal maker. I recently replaced it with a 17-55 f/2.8 IS as my main walkaround for my 40D.

This is an interesting conversation since I need something other than my 18-55 kit lens for reach. I too have thought of the 28-135 or the 28-105, the 18-85 or even the sigma 18-135.

If I want and L lens, I will get one for the type of photography I do. I love bird photography and walk around a lot in the backwards so the 300 Prime is perfect for me there, so ....I have my L lens.

But for a basic Walk about lens, I don't care to invest my money in L quality for that is not my style of photography. So one of these lens is fine, and am still in a quandry as to which one to select....

But one thing for sure, in my case...I want more reach than 55. I don't understand the folks that can accept a walk about lens of the 18-55 2.8 lens, just because it is an L lens..... The reach is still poor. The quality might be excellent since it is an L lens but for my needs in any walk about environment, 55 mm isn't going to cut it one way or another. It hasn't with my Kit 18-55 nor will it with the 18-55 2.8L. Enough said...way overpriced for me and brings no use to my needs.

So....Sigma 18-135 or Canon 18-85 bring reach at both ends....the former is a bit suspect in quality it seems, the latter in being overpriced.

So...28-105 and 28-135?...both are short on one side but perfect on the other. Yikes...too many decisions.....

BeritOlam wrote in post #8367550
It could be things are different this side of the pond.

I know Ken Rockwell is seen as an armchair hack by some....but he just this week reviewed the 28-135 (on a FF) and gave it two big thumbs up!

I think they are different there, so I am really speakin' about UK comparisons.

If Ken gives two thumbs up I'd give it two fingers, or in US speak one middle finger