Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM to replace 18-55mm (Non-IS) ?!?

Hello All,

I have a Canon XTi with the kit lens (18-55 mm non-IS) and have been thinking of replacing it with a better one. I notice that the market is now kinda flooded with the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM and should be able to pick up a decent used/new one. I'm just a casual shooter and wanted extra range. I like the lower range (18-28mm) that the kit lens offers over the other one but cannot ignore the gain from 55 to 135mm. What do you suggest ?!?

Two weeks ago, I went to Niagara falls and I tried M and Av mode but faced problems with the DOF ... I couldn't get large area focussed in a given light/aperture/time/IS​O combination, more so in the night pictures. I'll have to read thru more articles and practise more ..

Thanks ...

Humm, for the Niagara night shot, you would have needed a tripod, even with the 28-135. I had the 28-135, and it was a decent lens - definitely better than the original 18-55.

I will tell you what I did....I went from the kit lens, and pretty quickly moved to the 28-105 version I, then shortly after that to the 28-135. I stayed that way for quite a while and was happy with the results. I just recently got the 17-40L and 24-105L to replace the 28-135.

The 28-105 (version II) is a decent lens for what you pay. I was happy with the 28-135 results as well. Its all in what you can afford. If your going to do it in steps just do the research and make sure you get something a little better each time so that you aren't disappointed with your decision to change.

Definitely an excellent buy for $200 (or even $250) new if you can get one. I bought mine for $420 a year before the 40D came out. You'll get respectable IQ. You'll notice a few things when you try this lens out:

- You'll wish that it went wider than 28mm
- The lens is much larger than the 18-55mm and has a metal mount, heavier but not too heavy. It just feels a lot more substantial than the 18-55
- Having 135mm on a crop is very useful. It's very versatile. You can take candids or portraits and probably don't even need a telephoto lens for every-day use
- You'll wish again that it went wider than 28mm

I think it makes a great walk-around lens outdoors. The fact that it only goes as wide as 28mm make it difficult to use indoors and group photos. You might consider keeping your 18-55 just for wide angle. The long end is very nice and I've put off buying a dedicated telephoto lens for two years now.

The IS (older generation) is great and was something I took for granted since this was my first lens. It's amazing how much shake you can see in the viewfinder from using a 70-200 w/o IS. The focus motor is a ring-type USM so you'll notice that it's much faster and quieter than the 18-55.

If you find yourself taking indoor photos often, you might consider purchasing the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron. It has a similar focal range, is a faster lens and has much better IQ from what I hear. It's priced around $400 last I checked. You might also consider getting the 18-55 IS, which has IS and better IQ ($150?).

Lidor7 wrote in post #6467764
...
- You'll wish that it went wider than 28mm
...
- You'll wish again that it went wider than 28mm

I think it makes a great walk-around lens outdoors. The fact that it only goes as wide as 28mm make it difficult to use indoors and group photos. You might consider keeping your 18-55 just for wide angle. The long end is very nice and I've put off buying a dedicated telephoto lens for two years now.

The IS (older generation) is great and was something I took for granted since this was my first lens. It's amazing how much shake you can see in the viewfinder from using a 70-200 w/o IS. The focus motor is a ring-type USM so you'll notice that it's much faster and quieter than the 18-55.

If you find yourself taking indoor photos often, you might consider purchasing the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron. It has a similar focal range, is a faster lens and has much better IQ from what I hear. It's priced around $400 last I checked. You might also consider getting the 18-55 IS, which has IS and better IQ ($150?).

When I upgraded from the 18-55 non-IS on my XT, I went for the 17-85 IS. I felt that 55 was not long enough reach sometimes. And I didn't want to loose out on the wide end.

I was happy with my choice until recently. I think the biggest part of my problem with indoor photos is that 1). I dont have a 430 or 580 flash, and 2). F4 is not fast enough. So now I'm considering selling the 17-85, and going for the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. Sure I'll loose the reach again, but the faster lens seems more important to me now. I'm also about to pick up the 55-250 IS soon, so I'll be covered on the tele-end too.

So if you'd consider the 17-85, I've seen them show up on the Sell section of this site fairly regularly.

If you've got the money, go for the 17-55IS. It's a great lens from what I've heard. The 28-135 is not a bad lens by any stretch but you will miss the wide end.

My lens progression has been this: Sigma 17-70; Sigma 24-70; Sigma 24-60 and last but certainly not least the Canon 24-70 AKA the Brick. I've also owned the Tokina 12-24 and I loved it but sold it and my 70-200 f/4L to fund the Bigmos. I do miss the wide end but maybe one day I'll pick up a 16-35. I don't see myself going back to an XXD camera so it will either be another 1D or a 5D.

Anyway, I really think you'll miss the wide end. I know I do. I have no intention on selling my Brick though. It's a phenomenal lens. The only thing missing is IS.

Oh crap, I forgot about the 17-85 that I had! I didn't like the build quality of it one bit. It's slow too.

Medic85 wrote in post #6467914
Oh crap, I forgot about the 17-85 that I had! I didn't like the build quality of it one bit. It's slow too.

Hmmm.... I've been satisfied on the build quality of my copy. But I agree on the slowness 100%

I forgot to mention.... I drove myself crazy deciding what to upgrade to for over a month. I really wanted the 24-105, but just could not come up with $$$ at the time. So I narrowed it down to 28-135 or 17-85. I wanted the reach of 135, but 28 would just not be wide enough for my indoor shooting. 24 might be ok, but 28 would be too limiting for me.

Now that I've had my XT for about 2 years (my first SLR of any kind), I'm learning that my preference for a walk-around lens that I would use indoors should be faster that F4. If I sell my 17-85, it wont cost too much more cash to get the Tamron 17-50 F2.8. If I could spend the $1200, I would choose the Canon 24-70 F2.8. Even though I think 28 is not wide enough for some of the shots I want to take indoors, the 28 F1.8 prime lens is also on my wish-list.

Couple comments about the 17-85 IS. Since it the market isn't flooded with them, I think they probably still cost $500 new, maybe $400 used? Whereas you can probably get a 28-135 IS for $250. To me, that's a fairly significant price difference, but 17-85 seems like the perfect focal length. The IS on is it is newer as well, I believe.

The 17-85 starts at f/4. The 28-135 starts at f/3.5. I think they both end at f/5.6 at the long end.

I currently own the 28-135 and my tentative eventual plan is to swap it out for the 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron and the 55-250 IS.

I really like my 28-135 on my 40d. Yes there were times I wish it went wider, but I shot 2 friends weddings with it and other than struggling indoors (my speedlight made up for that), I was able to deal with the wide end. Pictures are sharp and crisp, no sure why it gets a such a bad rap.

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'image/png'

28-135 is a good lens, great for the price if you get a used one for $250 or so. It's not a replacement for the 18-55 though, but goes good with it. I like to cover the full range with my lenses. Since buying the 28-135 it's my default walk around lens.

17-85mm wins. Buy mine?

I have both.
I had the 17-85 on my XTi. When I bought the 40D I decided for the extra bucks to go with the 28-135. Depending on where I am shooting determines which one. I do have my eye on the 17-55 IS 2.8 for low light.

I think Lidor7 has given some excellent advice. If you can't make the leap to the 24-105L, then you should be able to pick up a used 28-135 at a reasonable price. It's not an "L" lens, but it's a good quality, general purpose lens that you will not be ashamed of. As for not being wide enough, that is what you must decide for yourself. Do you want the extra reach for outdoors, or the wide angle for indoor shots? No lens does everything.

thanks for your perspectives ... those pictures are pretty sharp USEr876 ... thanks for posting them ... i'm leaning more towards getting the 28-135 for now, play n see if it fits my needs .. for interiors/portraits, i tend to use my nifty fifty more - we do not necessarily need a zoom lens for indoors but probably need wider prime ... once i buy it, i don't want to keep the 18-55 but seems like no one wants the old non-IS one ...

dont want to bring in a 3rd one but 17-85 too seems to be promising definitely cant afford the L at this time ...