Anyone using the 28-135 IS ?

neonpollen

neonpollen

Suspended / Banned
Messages
587
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm after a new walkabout lens and I've been considering the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. I can't stretch to an 'L series at the moment so thought this would be a good compromise.

  • Do any of you folks have one of these ?
  • Are they any good ?
  • Are there any alternative I should consider at the same price/performance ?
 
I used to have a 28-135 IS - It makes a great walkaround lens but does produce soft results under 45mm.

I would also check out the Sigma and Tamrom 28-200mm lenses, they are just as sharp but have the advantage of longer focal length but obviously no IS.
 
Or the Tamron 24-135 which gets very good reviews.
 
Don't forget that for that lens it's range was specified for the 35mm format, for a 1.6 crop (350D, 20D, 30D) it works out at 45-216 which is a bit limiting for a general purpose lens.

The 1.6 crop equivalent is the 17-85 IS.
 
Thanks guys, you have given me something to think about.

I'm dissapointed to here that the 28-135 is soft below 45mm :( I'd rather have a sharp lens and lose the IS functionality. I also hadn't taken the crop factor into account, so I will have to re-think this.

Basically I want a walk about lens to compliment my 70-200 F2.8, I have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 at the moment but it's not a very sharp example and I'm getting frustrated with it.
 
Mate, I have exactly the same lens and know what you mean. I would recommend looking at the 17-85 which would be the perfect friend to your 70-200.
 
So I guess you are happy with the one you bought off Diego :)
 
Well I only got it last night, but it looks good on the camera, so 'so far so good'! lol

I plan to take a few shots this weekend so I'll let you know if you can wait that long.

Diego was only selling it because he's gone all posh and is buying L class lenses now.
 
neonpollen said:
Basically I want a walk about lens to compliment my 70-200 F2.8, I have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 at the moment but it's not a very sharp example and I'm getting frustrated with it.
Click to expand...
The 28-135 IS is pretty much the same quality as your current 28-105 but with IS
 
SammyC said:
Well I only got it last night, but it looks good on the camera, so 'so far so good'! lol

I plan to take a few shots this weekend so I'll let you know if you can wait that long.

Diego was only selling it because he's gone all posh and is buying L class lenses now.
Click to expand...

Well, not good. Went out today and tested the 17 - 40MM L, the 24 - 70mm L, the 70 - 200mm L. I can safely say that the first two do not compare to the 17 - 85 I sold you. :thinking: :thumbsdown:

I shot in raw, exactly as I would have done with the 17 - 85 and nope, unimpressed. usual capture one workflow to tiff and cs2. I will steer clear of these now. Next test is the 28 - 105 L but no one has one anywhere.

The 70 - 200 is nice, but kinda neither here nor there as a lenght, though the F4 is a boon. It is arguably better than the IS version.

I reckon you got a superb lens from me, even more so now. :)

No rush, may just give it all up and live in a monastry.

Diego.
 
SammyC said:
I plan to take a few shots this weekend so I'll let you know if you can wait that long.
Click to expand...

Thanks I'd like to see what you manage to get over the weekend.
 
Diego Garcia said:
Well, not good. Went out today and tested the 17 - 40MM L, the 24 - 70mm L, the 70 - 200mm L. I can safely say that the first two do not compare to the 17 - 85 I sold you. :thinking: :thumbsdown:

I shot in raw, exactly as I would have done with the 17 - 85 and nope, unimpressed. usual capture one workflow to tiff and cs2. I will steer clear of these now. Next test is the 28 - 105 L but no one has one anywhere.

The 70 - 200 is nice, but kinda neither here nor there as a lenght, though the F4 is a boon. It is arguably better than the IS version.

I reckon you got a superb lens from me, even more so now. :)

No rush, may just give it all up and live in a monastry.

Diego.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that you're struggling with a replacement mate, obviously I'm not sorry that I have your lens, but sorry you're not getting the results you expect with the L's.

:)
 
neonpollen said:
Thanks I'd like to see what you manage to get over the weekend.
Click to expand...

What other len's do you have NP? I'm going to do a comparison to my other lenses this evening (if I remember) and post up a review. Should be against kit lens, 50mm prime and I'll include a couple from the 28-105 for you mate.
 
I only have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and a 70-200 F2.8L at the moment and it's the 28-105 I want to replace.

Thanks.
 
I have the 70-200 F/4 l, the 17-40 f/4 L and just got in the last couple of weeks the 24-105 f/4 IS.

I would say the 24-105 is on a par with the 70-200 for sharpness. But it stays sharper with slow shutter speeds - I've hand held at 1.3secs - and it was the subject that moved (I know this because the chair was OK!). Now I'm not saying that it would stand pixel peeping though!

I would agree that the 17-40 isn't as sharp as the other two - but it does depend how you use it - its parfocal so you can zoom in, focus, zoom out again and take the shot - does help funnily enough (Tripod only though!)

I found the 17-40 really good for landscapes and places like Barcellona, buildings and such, where you aren't looking to get absolutely sharp pictures. For portraits its not good enough most of the time - too short and not critically sharp enough most of the time.

The 24-105, on the other hand is excellent for portraits and the IS really helps - when the subject is posed.
 
I think I may hang on for a while save up some more cash and go for the 24-105 F/4 L.
 
neonpollen said:
I only have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 and a 70-200 F2.8L at the moment and it's the 28-105 I want to replace.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I've just added a review of the 17-85 which is compared against the 28-105 with test images if you want to have a look NP.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top