28-135 IS Portraits and Macro

I recently had a chance to talk to Monte Zucker about studio portraits and lenses, cameras, etc, and he recommended the 28-135 IS very highly for studio work, and looking at his results, I'd say it produces some great work (although, I'm sure a lot of it has to do with him behind it!)

Does anyone have any experiance with this lens and doing portraits?

How good of a job will this do with Macro work, with Extension Tubes?

Best price I've found is $409 from Canoga Camera, which saves me on shipping as they are decently close.

Thanks for the advice!

-Johnny

Well I just got one along with my new 20D and 17-40L. I took a few shots with that lens but not really portraits, just some outdoor shots. So cannot really comment on the lens yet.

It should make a great studio lens. In a studio you will probably be shooting at f8 or f11, where this lens is really sharp, and of course it has a great range for everything from full body shots to close-up headshots without having to get too close to your model.

I have that lens and it's pretty good. I keep this lens on my 10D when it's being stored. I like it for outdoor, good lighting situations, and I have little kids who move around a lot. But I like my 85mm f1.8 a lot more for portraits. I have the 50mm 1.4 and that's good for portraits too. I used both the 28-135 and 50 1.4 yesterday for a wedding shoot and the zoom capability is good, but for the pictures I printed, the 50mm 1.4 lens is a lot tighter and better focused. It's tricky working with the IS feature because you have to get used to it. I hope this answered your question. It's a good lens for the money, but not necessarily what I use for portraits.

SuzyView
10D, EOS 3, 550ex, 85 1.8, 50 1.4, 28-135 IS, 28-105, Tamron 19-35 & other stuff

For the price it is a great lens, there are better portrait lenses out there. As mentioned above, the 28-135, 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.4 are all nice lenses. You are correct that a good photographer can get great results without the PRO "L" lenses, but I hear the "L" make getting the good results easier.

i'm not a pro by any means, but i did take these with my 28-135 :

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I have used the 28-135 IS for years as my primary lens. I love it and will always keep it around. I used it for portraits, landscapes, macros. Its a great lens for a great price.

I had this lens and sold it after using for a few months. For studio portraiture, it is a fine lens because, withou fail, we usually use a clean or/and nice backdrop. However, this will not be the case if we are shooting outside of studio setting, the F3.5 - 5.6 aperture and 6 diaphragm blades do not result in satisfactory bokeh (or background blur). I bought a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for portraiture instead.

I bought the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 for digital photography and took it on a wedding shoot. I had my EOS 3 and switched the two lenses and my niece took pictures with the lens on the EOS 3, which you know, doesn't work right. That lens is nice and a good value for the price. If lighting is a concern, remember the smaller the f, the better. The 28-135 IS does not take in as much light, but has the IS, whereas the Tamron lets in more light for sharper pictures. The blur issue is important in portraits, so that is something you will have to decide. I say go to a good camera store near you and try them both. Can't hurt.

SuzyView

If you are doing portraits, you should go with a prime lens though. 100 2.8 Macro will cover both the macro and portraits. Super sharp lens.

It depends on what kind of portraits. If you are looking to blur the background, then you should consider a prime like the 85/1.8, or 50/1.8. If you have a full frame camera then lose the 50 and make the 100 part of this list. To me large aperature is important to blur the background.

This would be in a Studio environment, so the Bokeh doesnt really come into play, I have every intention of getting the 85 1.8, 100 Macro, and 135 2.8, but I'm looking to kill as many birds with one stone as possible. I'm really thinking this lens is going to fulfill most of my needs, Great walk around lens, Portrait lens, and Not a lot of $$$. I'm just worried about the results using Extension Tubes for Macro work, at 5.6 at the long end, I'm going to be losing A LOT of light, but on the otherhand, the IS feature would probably be extremly helpful.

I've played around with 28-135 IS, the Tamron 28-75, the 85 and the 100 Macro, but in a Camera store its really difficult to put it through its paces. Wonder what it would cost to rent the 28-135 and the Tamron, Although I can get the Tamron for around $275 new (There are a few benefits to working for Ritz, and I do mean a Few, they truly are a horrible company on every level)

Bah, Maybe I should just get the Split Focus Screen and use my M42 Lenses, sure would save me a lot of money! LOL

Thanks for all the Input thus Far.

-Johnny

Did you like the Tamron, i think that would be even more versatile with the 2.8, except for the macro part.

I really liked it, I just really want more reach, Tamron used to make a 28-105 2.8, but they discontinued it. One of the biggest reasons I'm leaning towards the Canon is the versatility as a walk around lens, my ideal lens would be a 28-200 2.8 that was TACK sharp through the entire range, wouldnt even care how heavy it was.

Bah! I should just buy another body and both lenses, then I could have it all (anyone wanna buy me another body and lens?)

-Johnny

Just a comment about Ritz. I went into the one here in Manassas and the salesman wasn't helpful at all and made me feel bad about asking about a flash diffuser. He said that if I knew anything, I would know that Ritz wouldn't have that kid of equipment. He could have steered me to a place that actually had that item. I ended up ordering from Canon off the magazine. Now to help with your question, it's a matter of portraits and blur. If you only want your subject in sharp focus, the Tamron may be disappointing. You have to weigh the value of having a zoom and a true portrait lens. The Tamron is also really light (a plus). The 85 f1.8 is heavier and the 28-135 IS even heavier than that. Putting those lenses on your camera around your neck can be tiring. Add the large flash and a tripod sounds great.

SuzyView