Should I Purchase Canon 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6

Hey,

I'm just getting started with Photography. I'm reading books, planning on taking classes, and reading these forums to try and learn what equiptment I need, and all the other essentials. I only have 2 lenses at this point for my 350D, the 18-55mm kit lens and the 75-300 mm f 4-5.6 III USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. I'm wanting to get another lens as a gernal walk around lens, but perhaps also with the purpose of using it for Portraits. I have heard that the Canon 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 would be a good choice for a walkaround, and that between that and the kit lens I should be pretty well covered for Portraits also. What's your opinions? Is this a next good choice for me in lenses? Or is there a better lens that would cover me better?

This lens has a reputation for softness. Also the focal length is not really suited to a crop factor DSLR. I wouldn't buy it, and neither would I be in a hurry to do away with the kit lens either - it is perfectly Ok stopped down a bit.

Your telephoto zoom is also perfectly acceptable within certain limits - remember to maintain a high shutter speed, especially at 300mm, even at the cost of high ISO, as noise is one thing, camera shake is quite another.

I'd suggest looking at lenses like the sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, also the Tamron and Tokina f/2.8 lenses in the range 16/17-50-55mm - they are excellent. You might also want to consider sigma 17-70mm - goes from nice and wide to nice and long - or perhaps the Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS lens, which is basically the designed-for-digital version of the lens you mentioned.

I'd also strongly recommend getting a 50mm f/1.8 as your first prime lens, so you can see what a good sharp lens can do.

I chose to get the 17-40L as my walk-about lens, I already had the 50mm f/1.8 from my film days, and then i saved up and got the 70-200 f/4 which I helped pay for by selling my Canon 75-300mm USM II lens. My next lens will either be a macro or a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - either way it will be a prime lens. I also have a hankering for the 24-105 f/4 IS lens......

Check out The Digital Picture for some good general advice on Canon lenses.

BTW, I still use the kit lens on occasion. It works just fine.

Hi,

I use the 28-135 lens as my walk around lens and I like the focal lengths. It is great for traveling as it gives you a mild telephoto. My copy is sharp. This lens has a varied reputation but I believe you will find at least an euqal amount of pros & Cons.

Bob

I agree with pacmktg, you'll find varied opinions about this lense. I owned it for about 10 months and had to sell it (to many hobbies). The copy I had, purchased at a local shop was a great copy, sharp enough for print wide open and tack sharp f8 and up.

I also agree, but have never owned the 17-85, that it would give you a better wide angle for general travel/landscape. It also is ranged enough for portrait work.

IMHO, Most people seemed to give this lense(28-135) a bad name because it's not "L" quality, but you cannot ask that of this lense.

If you use it for portrait work you will need light, I bought a 430ex and it worked great. Too bad I had to sell it.

I guess for portrait shooting the 50mm f/1.8 is a really good choice, especially for the price. I'll probably go ahead and pick one up. As far as a good, price effective walk around lens, how would the 50mm stand up for something like that?

It is not a bad lens, but not great either. Go for the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Better value...

Good lens to start with. Had mine for three or four years until the 17-55 came about.

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2111937
It is not a bad lens, but not great either. Go for the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8. Better value...

I do agree....I use my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 80% of the time
and it could be on 95% of the time if I did not like to experment with my other lens. I also own the canon and do like it, you hear about sharpness.....all I have to say about that is "One man's floor is an other mans celling"
I've very happy with both lenes

promet1 wrote in post #2116238
I do agree....I use my Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 80% of the time
and it could be on 95% of the time if I did not like to experment with my other lens. I also own the canon and do like it, you hear about sharpness.....all I have to say about that is "One man's floor is an other mans celling"
I've very happy with both lenes

Yeah, I have the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 at work and wish I would have gotten one at home instead of the Canon 28-135, but live and learn...

I shot these with my 28-135, don't let people say it's not sharp.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

deadpass wrote in post #2116362
I shot these with my 28-135, don't let people say it's not sharp.

What may be sharp for you may not be sharp for others.

Here are some I have from this lens:
http://www.photo.net …b/folder?folder​_id=450239

Rhinotherunt wrote in post #2116378
What may be sharp for you may not be sharp for others.

Here are some I have from this lens:
http://www.photo.net …b/folder?folder​_id=450239

what may be good bokeh to some, may not be to others. Can the 28-135 compete with an L prime? ofcourse not, but for what it costs I think it does a damn good job, if it was only a few stops faster.

deadpass wrote in post #2116362
I shot these with my 28-135, don't let people say it's not sharp.

It's not that sharp.

ok, apparently I didn't post the best example of sharp, apparently my opinion of what is sharp on a sub 400 dollar lens wide open is wrong.

Very soft.