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

I have the lens and this was taken with it...I like it.

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

runninmann wrote in post #5690284
Why does it need to be an 'L'?

17-55 ... love the IQ I've seen here, but for $1000+ (price go up?) I do not want to deal with all the potential problems I see from others. Also it is EF-S ... I'm thinking FF in future.

Not everything has to be "L", but for that price? HELL YEAH!!

Biggest reason is the build though.

Mystwalker wrote in post #5690664
17-55 ... love the IQ I've seen here, but for $1000+ (price go up?) I do not want to deal with all the potential problems I see from others. Also it is EF-S ... I'm thinking FF in future.

Not everything has to be "L", but for that price? HELL YEAH!!

Biggest reason is the build though.

the lens is a dust magnet and according to some posters the IS unit is prone to failure.

if the 17-55 were an L lens i'd buy it in a hearbeat and sell my 16-35L II and 24-70L.

the 17-55 is a niche lens that does not fit my main camera and didn't fit my last one (5d) either .

ed rader

I still have my 28-135 that came with my 40D kit. I like it but it does not seem very sharpe compared to other lenses that I have now (or pics I have seen with "better" lenses). I will keep it until I can fund something better. Since I am learning I feel that the 28-135 is "good enough" for now.

There tends to be a bit of lens snobbery in here and some members have a tendency to look down on "kit lenses." The 28-135 is probably one of the better lenses Canon has included with their camera kits. It's certainly better than those EF-S lenses that are only useable on a limited range of cameras.

The 28-135 was my primary short lens for eight years. I shot all kinds of stuff with it, including a number of weddings, illustrations for a museum guidebook, and a couple of airshows I got paid for. I only bought a Tamron 28-75 last fall because I realized I needed more speed.

ed rader wrote in post #5690737
the lens is a dust magnet and according to some posters the IS unit is prone to failure.

if the 17-55 were an L lens i'd buy it in a hearbeat and sell my 16-35L II and 24-70L.

the 17-55 is a niche lens that does not fit my main camera and didn't fit my last one (5d) either .

ed rader

Some of them are...not all of them. I just sold mine after almost a year of use, and it did not have 1 speck of visible dust in it. This lens sure gets a bad rap for how great a lens it actually is. If they came out with one that would fit my MkIIn I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I HATE that I had to sell it, and there's no EF replacement for it.

JWright wrote in post #5691036
There tends to be a bit of lens snobbery in here and some members have a tendency to look down on "kit lenses." The 28-135 is probably one of the better lenses Canon has included with their camera kits. It's certainly better than those EF-S lenses that are only useable on a limited range of cameras.

The 28-135 was my primary short lens for eight years. I shot all kinds of stuff with it, including a number of weddings, illustrations for a museum guidebook, and a couple of airshows I got paid for. I only bought a Tamron 28-75 last fall because I realized I needed more speed.

I think the 28-135 was a pretty nice kit zoom on a film EOS, certainly better than the 35-80, 28-90, 28-105/4-5.6 kind of stuff that usually came with film Rebels.

The only thing I question on the 28-135 now is kitting it with a 1.6X camera body. That's not too far from kitting a film body with a 55-200 and nothing else....which would be a pretty wierd setup.

IMO Canon kitted the 28-135 IS with the 40D when they did because the 18-55 IS was not tooled up and they really needed to have IS standard in the kit to deal with Sony and Pentax.

JeffreyG wrote in post #5692049
I think the 28-135 was a pretty nice kit zoom on a film EOS, certainly better than the 35-80, 28-90, 28-105/4-5.6 kind of stuff that usually came with film Rebels.

The only thing I question on the 28-135 now is kitting it with a 1.6X camera body. That's not too far from kitting a film body with a 55-200 and nothing else....which would be a pretty wierd setup.

IMO Canon kitted the 28-135 IS with the 40D when they did because the 18-55 IS was not tooled up and they really needed to have IS standard in the kit to deal with Sony and Pentax.

if that were the case wouldn't canon have used the 17-85 IS?

i think canon wanted to dump the 28-135 because like you say it's a good film lens but not up to snuff for FF digital and it has already been replaced by the 24-105L.

i guess as long as you're getting a deal on the kit and you can reduce your cost basis by selling the 28-135 for canon all's well.

but to bundle the 40d with the 28-135 has a high cheese factor and i'd like to slap the guy who gave the okay just for good measure .

ed rader

Wow, everyone, thank you so much for your opinions on this! I found reading all of your posts quite informative. I completely agree that I need to get a book and study. It seems people have different thoughts on how a beginner should start out. I think that since I already have the lens, I'll play with it more (while reading a book). I don't know how quickly I'll reach the limit of what this lens has to offer, or rather, how quickly I'll actually KNOW the limits of this lens; I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, I'm having a great time figuring out my "style". I took photos at my friend's daughter's kung fu exhibition, and other stuff just for kicks. Please feel free to give me constructive criticism..photography is phun!

Thanks again!

my dog...

The 28-135 IS does not have any glaring flaws, but it's also not exceptional. Too many other lenses in Canon's lineup and 3rd party offerings now offer better performance, its as simple as that.

I think this is a great lens for the money. Before you diss it too much take a look at these samples:
.
.
.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=188563

I bought one and part of the reason is for the IS. My health problems have made this dandly little electronic feature a necessity. Here's Elliott the cat, this is a crop from the following frame:

http://www.flickr.com …3@N03/247952886​0/sizes/o/

A smallerized pix of the original frame, showing how much this was cropped

http://www.flickr.com …/18786943@N03/2​478716417/

handheld, F7.1, 400ISO, 1/1000, at 135mm

What kind of photos do you enjoy taking the most ? I find this pretty much dictates what lens(es) you'd like to have, although I don't think there are any set rules.

If you like doing nature shots, of "Squirrel squirrel show me your nuts" type, then you probably need a zoom with a good reach, 200 at long end at least.

If you like taking pictures of cityscapes & buildings, and overall landscapes, the 28 mm is probably too narrow, I find that even 17 mm is kinda cramped.

If you like taking a lot of indoor pictures, flash or no flash, you may want to add a relatively very cheap 50 1/8 ("Nifty Fifty") to your kit - actually I think you should anyway, this lens is very sharp, has much better low light performance than the one you have, and is a great "backup" lens when you're not using it - so small you don't even notice it when you're carrying it around. When I got my first DSLR a year ago I was in the same situation as you, actually my kit lens was very very crappy old 28-90, and the Nifty was what I ended up using 90% of time, for all kinds of shots. I still use it often even though I did end up getting a very good "walkaround" lens.

Raivyn wrote in post #5692321
my dog...

Hi Raivyn. There has been lot of good advice given on this post, some I agree with and some not.... and that is the very nature of the problem with lens and in fact any kit.

If you are concerned about your skill level or knowledge and are concerned about the lens you have you could always buy a cheap Canon 50mm f1.8. These are very cheap but amazingly sharp. (Better still, if you can borrow one). Take some shots with this and see what you think of colour, sharpness etc. The portrait you have taken already, I believe will look a lot sharper. It is difficult to judge a piece of kit when you have nothing against which to judge it. The Nifty fifty has a good rep amongst most photographers and it is worth a try.

Once you have used it (50mm) you will probably have more confidence with your skill levels and you may find you get more out of the other lens than you thought.
Hope this helps.
Reaperman

I have never had a issue with mine even in low light. This is a great lens.