28-135 IS Kit Lens. The final verdict

So, this lens comes up a lot in various threads as it's a common kit lens. So what say you.

* The amount in the poll is from the 7D pricing: $1699 for the body or $1899 for the kit

I picked one up for my wife for $195 and its a nice lens to use on her 300d body and she gets some great shots out of this combo.

Thanks for the comment. Have any sample pics

Sure.. These were taken at the Norfolk Zoo yesterday and this was her first time using a DSLR camera and I had it set on auto to start off..

A Red Panda

Sure. It pretty sharp, however the colors aren't the greatest - but it's fairly cheap. The biggest knock is the variable aperture; everything else is subjective.

i actually really like my 28-135. its nice and sharp just sometimes its just not wide enough for me.

It's one of the best kit lens. Sharp and focus very close.
You can always sell it later for $250 ~ $300 if you don't like it.

I will probably get this lens to accompany with my primes when I get a 5D.

The 28-135 certainly isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but its focal length, IS and compact size/weight make it a great 'single lens' option - particularly when travelling.

I personally rank it up there amongst the worst lenses I've ever used..right behind the 28-105mm USM II

It's not a bad lens and a great kit lens for like, the xxD series but the 7D should really have something else. It's still an odd FL for crop cameras so it's almost like Canon has no idea what to do with these lenses so now they're kit lenses.

AudibleSilence wrote in post #8645835
I personally rank it up there amongst the worst lenses I've ever used..right behind the 28-105mm USM II

Really? I have to say that I disagree with your statement. While the 28-135 may not be the greatest lens in the world it is definilty worth 200 bucks. There are not many lenses you can get for that money that has IS, that range, weight, and sharpness. And as far as the 28-105 USM II, while better than the 28-135 it is far from being a bad lens. In fact I could say that as far as focus speed and sharpness its not far off from some L lenses. If you can get your hands on a good copy jump on it. I wish I still had mine. I voted yes for the 28-135.

I'd save $50 more and spring for the Tammy 28-75mm f/2.8... Though waiting to find one at that price may take a while. Let me clarify, I don't think it is a bad lens for the money, I just find it terribly lack luster.

It is such a stupid range for a crop camera, compounded by the fact that they now have 4 lenses that cover the crop equivalent+ (17-85, 18-200, 18-135, 15-85). WTF??? Its almost as if Canon unearthed a c.1998 warehouse filled with them three years ago (they started sticking it with the 40D as a kit IIRC) and still haven't exhausted their stock. One of the greatest mysteries of the current Canon lineup.

Chez Wimpy wrote in post #8646276
It is such a stupid range for a crop camera.

do you ever use your 70-200mm on your 5d?...is that range just as stupid?

DreDaze wrote in post #8646489
do you ever use your 70-200mm on your 5d?...is that range just as stupid?

hey hey! I just got this and love it!

OP: I don't know what everyone is talking about that it is a crappy lens. Though I may have sold mine for a 24-70, I still think that the 28-135 was a great lens to begin with. It didn't make my images crap, and it provided a good enough focal range to do a good amount of things, without going to far. Hell, I was downtown the other day and I saw a woman with a 1ds mark iii with a 28-135 attached to it, I thought strange, but whatever gets her good images. Bottom line, it's not the glass, but the person behind it.