Please advise on the 28-135USM IS combined with the 5D classic.

I currently have a T2i, the nifty fifty and the 28-135 lens that usually comes with the 50D, 7D, etc. the lens has a mediocre reputation, but I've been using it so long that I really like it and can make it work.

So, I'm going to sell my T2i and upgrade to a 5D classic (all I can afford). 95+ percent of my photos are portrait in natural light, informal events at work and home, and landscapes and architecture.

I'll be keeping the nifty fifty. I like it a lot.

So, the question is: will the 28-135 hinder the benefits of the 5D? Am I wasting time sticking with this lens? Regardless, I'll eventually get better glass, but not zooms. I'm addicted to primes now and can't go back (with the exception of my walk around 28-135).

I'd love to see some full frame shots from this lens. I wish there was a way to filter this website for specific lens-camera parameters. That would be sweet.


Thanks, friends.

Aperture wise, it's a slow turd of a lens, but isn't bad optically. It works fine on film, so I can't imagine it wouldn't work just fine on the 5D, as well.

If you're set on buying new primes, I'd sell the T2i with the 28-135 and keep the nifty - especially for portraits. When you buy a faster 50 later, you can re-sell the nifty easily.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15124689
I'd love to see some full frame shots from this lens. I wish there was a way to filter this website for specific lens-camera parameters. That would be sweet.


Thanks, friends.

You can do that type of search on Flickr.

bob_r wrote in post #15125297
You can do that type of search on Flickr.

Sweet. Thanks. I'll check in to that.

About the 50mm. Faster isn't so much important to me as what the next level offers in durability and autofocus. My nifty fifty is delicate, as they all are. But it's a good lens.

I did this move with a 40D to a 5D II. It was fine on the 40D at any aperture. On the 5D II, the edges suffer significantly, particularly at wide apertures and focals.

Here's 100mm f/5.6 from the 28-135 on the 5D II:

https://dl.dropbox.com …temp/camera/281​35at56.jpg

And from my 100/2, same aperture:

https://dl.dropbox.com …temp/camera/100​f2at56.jpg

These won't be up forever, download them while you have the chance.

I upgraded to a 24-105/4. They go used for about $750. The build quality is better. The IS system is at least a stop better. It's fairly sharp across the frame wide open at any focal, or was after I had Canon calibrate it. There's no reason to prefer the 28-135 save that it's comparatively disposable.

Given that you're losing the crop factor, you may find a 70-200/4 IS better approximates the 28-135's working range.

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #15124689
So, the question is: will the 28-135 hinder the benefits of the 5D? Am I wasting time sticking with this lens? Regardless, I'll eventually get better glass, but not zooms. I'm addicted to primes now and can't go back (with the exception of my walk around 28-135).

The 28-135 wouldn't be my first choice, but it works. If you were going to stick with zooms I'd suggest getting something else to use on the 5D. But if you're going with primes and it's more something to fall back on, that upgrade might be better left on the back burner. If you were going to spend a bit more to upgrade it, you might want to consider the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. It has better bokeh and better overall image quality than the 28-135, plus it's nice to have the constant f/2.8 available. Or for a bit more than the Tamron, you could get the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS that KnightRT suggests.

I find the 28-135 to work very well on my 5D classic. It will appear sharper than on your T2i due to the reduced enlargement to reach the same viewing size and that you will have to stop down further to get the same depth of field on the 5D. It is a very handy lens and covers a very useful range. If you shoot raw you can use the free Canon DPP to correct the distortion and chromatic aberration to make the pictures look even better.

I'd rather have a t2i and a Sigma 17-70.

tkbslc wrote in post #15128316
I'd rather have a t2i and a Sigma 17-70.

+1, I'd rather have a crop cam with some good lenses over a Full frame cam and so-so lenses

For a 5D and same price, the Tamron 28-75 is a better choice.
28-135 IS have the IS but is not sharp enough after 70mm... and the f/2.8 aperture of the 28-75 allows subject isolation for portraits.

The 28-105 USM V2 seems optically a better choice, too.

Titi

titi_67207 wrote in post #15128547
For a 5D and same price, the Tamron 28-75 is a better choice.
28-135 IS have the IS but is not sharp enough after 70mm... and the f/2.8 aperture of the 28-75 allows subject isolation for portraits.

The 28-105 USM V2 seems optically a better choice, too.

Titi

I agree that the 28-135 is not the greatest lens on a FF, but I don't think the 28-105 V2 is any better. In my experience they are about the same optically and TheDigitalPicture.com tests say the 28-135 is actually better at similar focal length and aperture:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2

macroimage wrote in post #15128302
It will appear sharper than on your T2i due to the reduced enlargement to reach the same viewing size and that you will have to stop down further to get the same depth of field on the 5D.

Not so. See the pictures I posted. Even at f/8, weak edge performance will be apparent.

None of the older variable-aperture zooms will do justice to a 5D. This includes the 24-85/3.5-4.5, the 28-105/3.5-4.5, and certainly the cut-rate models in similar focal lengths that followed.

Here's the 28-135 at 40mm, f/5.6:

https://dl.dropbox.com …/camera/28135at​40at56.jpg

And the 17-40, same settings:

https://dl.dropbox.com …p/camera/1740at​40at56.jpg

And the 24-105, this one at 24 mm:

https://dl.dropbox.com …/camera/24105at​24at56.jpg

The are all crops from the top edge. If all three were at f/4 and 28mm, the difference would be even larger.

I don't think edge corner sharpness is that important for most portraits

It is for this lens. The 28-135 begins to blur about a third of the way in from any side. That's more than enough to cover the eyes in most portraits. AF also suffers with the outer points.

As already mentioned, it is not the greatest lens on the planet - in fact in the thread "what was your worst lens" I put the 28-135. I couldn't even sell it so gave it to my son. That said on a full frame it really is not that bad. When I brought the 5D2 I found a bit of love for it, the trouble was I also had a 24-105 and it blows it out of the water. If that was all I had though I would probably still be using it. I also found for shooting flowers or colourful things it has a better look to the shot than the 24-105 does, it is just not as sharp & more importantly as consistent.