Newbie likes the 28-135 - why doesn't anyone else?

Hi - I'm quite new to both photography and DSLR, and purchased the 40d kit/28-135 last week. I'd like to begin to take more interesting photos, and I've noticed on these threads that people tend to ditch this lens and purchase other lenses. If you're just starting out like me, does that make sense to do? What other lenses should a newbie have to start out with?

I don't even know that the numbers on the lens means, and this really is like learning to drive in a Ferrari, but I know w/the rebates the 40d was an excellent deal. Thanks in advance!

Because its not a great indoor lens. I had one and sold it and it didnt even come with my camera... Great beginner lens.
It didnt have enough reach in my opinon, but it has USM and IS which makes it an excellent lens.

digitalh3lix wrote in post #5686920
it has USM and IS which makes it an excellent lens.

There's a bit more that goes into a good lens than this.

The issues with this lens are that it tends to be soft. It is slow (no f/2.8 for example), it has problems with CA especially at the sides.

The USM is nice. The IS is old but workable.

It isn't a bad lens, just a mediocre one.

J

I agree, It's a ok lens. I traded mines out for a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8, it's much faster and sharper.

Don't worry about what other people say. Don't start doubting your equipment until you find it isn't accomplishing what you need it to.

That lens is a fine lens for certain things. It's not fast optically, or constructed as well as say the 24-105 4L IS, but it's much cheaper. It's slower, but it reaches longer at the telephoto end and loses a bit at the wide end. As a kit lens it's certainly a step above the really budget ones but it certainly has its limitations too.

If you don't know what the numbers mean or why other people may not keep using it, then you're not ready to move beyond it and haven't found that it limits you yet. Just start shooting and learning, in time you may decide you need a different lens (or lenses).

emorphien wrote in post #5687037
If you don't know what the numbers mean or why other people may not keep using it, then you're not ready to move beyond it and haven't found that it limits you yet. Just start shooting and learning, in time you may decide you need a different lens (or lenses).

The argument against this, which I think is quite valid, is that a new shooter can learn much faster from a lens that has more consistent performance and less quirkiness to overcome.

J.

I wouldn't rush to get rid of it because of what you have read somewhere. I reckon if your learning then stick with it for a while and get to know why these people say that it can be a bit soft and not fast. If you take their advice straight away without really knowing or understanding why then you may never really understand why.

I think money better spent right now would be to stick with the kit lens and buy this book: Understanding Exposure

It will help you more than you know. It's a great book. Then you will learn and understand why the kit lens isn't the greatest lens.

Enjoy and good luck!!

JohnJ80 wrote in post #5687046
The argument against this, which I think is quite valid, is that a new shooter can learn much faster from a lens that has more consistent performance and less quirkiness to overcome.

J.

I personally don't agree, and I find it just gets people in to the mindset that they need to spend more money on more and more equipment to try to "improve" their photography.

If he just got the thing, he should take some time to use what he's got. If he hates it he'll figure that out quickly and then can really work on deciding on a better lens for him.

I'd say it's more like a Ford Taurus than a Ferrari. Fairly economical but not overly so, decently efficient but not overly so, and adequate to get from one point to another. In other words, it's nice enough to have and use, but not something you brag about owning.

BTW the 50mm f/1.8 II is a Ford Pinto. It'll explode at the slightest provocation.

emorphien wrote in post #5687059
I personally don't agree, and I find it just gets people in to the mindset that they need to spend more money on more and more equipment to try to "improve" their photography.

If he just got the thing, he should take some time to use what he's got. If he hates it he'll figure that out quickly and then can really work on deciding on a better lens for him.

You can better lenses for the same money or less - consider the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (for example). This lens offers MUCH more consistent results and is much easier to learn on than the 28-135. Better for less - that would be attractive, would it not? There are a number of choices depending on what one wants to accomplish.

The problem is that a beginner doesn't know that blue tinge around the branches in the tree that they shot wasn't their fault but the lens'. The beginner doesn't realize that the soft photo wasn't them, but the lens. They did everything right, but the equipment lets them down. I suppose, if learning the quirks of a mediocre lens is useful, then I suppose you are right.

I think intelligent people can understand that they don't have to throw money at the problem. We are all endowed with the ability to reason, after all.

I'd sell it and get a better lens (supposing one is serious about learning). The learning curve is better and better results are achieved faster and sooner. One can have better and it doesn't have to cost much.

IMO, better advice is to buy just the body (or sell the kit) and get better glass to start. Results over time will be better.

J.

He can get better lenses for sure, but he's already got one. Selling it to trade for something else when he probably hasn't got a clue what range or type of lens is most useful to him is hasty. Otherwise he may have another lens to sell.

Go out and shoot for a couple weeks, then see where you're at. Learn what the limitations of a lens are, especially a mediocre one. He may prefer the zoom range over a better lens with less zoom. He may be happy enough with the results. I think he should see what people are talking about rather than blindly run off selling and buying what others recommend.

Banno wrote in post #5687053
I think money better spent right now would be to stick with the kit lens and buy this book: Understanding Exposure

I would second getting some useful books (Understanding Exposure is an excellent book) to first learn the basics of photography. At this point, your getting better equipment won't make the slightest bit of difference to your results. Master the equipment that you have now. Shoot lots of photographs, using the techniques described in those books. Trial-and-error is your teacher.

If you really want to add a lens, then get yourself the 50mm f/1.8 for about $90. With this lens, you will see very vivid differences in depth-of-field, as you adjust the lens aperture from f/1.8 to f/22. Learn the inter-relationship between aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. Once you've learned all of that, apply your new-found knowledge to taking more pictures, using aperture and shutter priority modes on your camera.

Finally, try to avoid the Equipment Talk sub-forum until you feel your equipment is keeping you from reaching the next level. Try some of the other sub-forums here that focus on photographic techniques and subject matter. Have others critique your images, and keep experimenting, learning. Good luck.

the 28-135 IS was one of my first lenses and it was very good, IS was great, focal range was great and I liked the images. But over time I bought other lenses and saw the sharpness and contrast being so much better, suddenly all my pics taken with the 28-135 started to look low contrasts, color-less, etc..

Anyhow, it's still a good lens, which can stay on your camera in most situations

The differences between a good lens and a great lens are as follows:

1. Aperture (usually wider & fixed)
2. Focus Speed (usually with an USM type motor, but not always)
3. Robustness (ability to stop babying your kit and use it the way it was meant to be used)
4. Sharpness (not always)
5. Flare Control (not always)
6. Contrast (not always)
7. Color accuracy (not always)

None of those differences are important to learn photography and most can be fixed in post-processing, or will be rendered moot when post-processing style is applied. Anyone who says otherwise is either:

1. A marketing major.
2. A marketing graduate/staffer.
3. A rabid justificationist.

Be sure to look for a gallery of images when receiving advice on a photography forum.

The 28-135 is not a bad lens but it is certainly not L quality. Look at the archive shots for the 28-135 and you will see some excellent pictures. Be happy with the equipment you have, buy a good book on photography (Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure is a good start), learn how to use what you have and enjoy photography. After you have figured out how to use your camera, figured out what all the numbers mean, and figured out the limitations of your lens then you may want to begin looking at a better lens.

Use your camera as much as possible and learn what kind of pictures you like to take. You may need a wider lens or a longer lens or you may be happy with what you have. If you learn to use what you have you will begin to understand the shortcomings of your equipment and you will be able to make more intelligent decisions on what to purchase to fill in your needs and you will be less likely to spend a lot of money on a lens that stays in your camera bag.