Do you recommend the Canon EF 28 - 135 mm IS?

K

kasabian

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Edit My Images
No
Hi everyone, hope I can get your opinion on something.

I have a Canon 1000D accompanied by a Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS

Earlier this year I purchased the Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 which I find to be so amazingly sharp and so good that I don't want to use anything else. But obviously it's not really a "walk around lens".

So I'm looking to sell my 18-135 and get a better "walk around" lens. Something as sharp and as good as the Canon EF 50 mm f/1.8 if possible.

Is the Canon EF 28 - 135 mm IS a good choice? or is it not much different to my 18-135? If not, what are the alternatives? I don't necessarily need a zoom as long as 135mm. Sharpness is the key! My budget is around £300...maybe a little more..

thanks a lot!
 
Last edited:
Tamron 17-50/2.8 gets my vote. The 28-135 is ok but nothing special on a full frame.. Too long for me on a crop.
 
You're but going to get anything as sharp as the 50mm in a zoom for that money and especially that range. Personally I think a 50mm prime is a great walk about lens. Maybe add the 35mm f2 as well? Two lenses, I know, but both light and extremely sharp.
 
Hi

Can't give you any comparison to the 18-135, but I used to have the 28-135IS and really liked it, for me it was the perfect walk about lens.

I've recommended one recently to a friend as he was very unsure, he has bought it and loves it - is using on a 60D.
 
If by "walkabout lens" you mean a lens to take pictures of anything and everything then you're going to miss a lot of opportunities with a 28mm wide end on a crop sensor.
 
I use the 28-135 and would never be without it especially for closeup work

Img_6004.jpg

Pb100004.jpg

kjhgjgjgjgjj.jpg
 
I also have the 28-135 lens and I wreckon for the money it is one of the better lens out there. I used to use it alot and it served me well, I still have it and use it on occasion and it still produces lovely images.

spike
 
Hi guys, thanks for all the replies. :thumbs: And thanks for the images posted. Look really good.

However I've been doing a bit more research this morning and have come across the Sigma 17-70 mm. I've read that it's really sharp. Obviously it isn't anywhere near 135mm in terms of reach, but I'm willing to forfeit that in exchange for sharper, crisper images. I think. :shrug:
 
I've compared the two, the 18-135 wins for better sharpness, better colour rendition, far better IS (4 stops) and better range.

The 28-135 was better built.

The 18-135 is a fine walkabout lens. If you Want something different, try the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. You'd be wasting your time going from the 18-135 to the 28-135.
 
odd jim said:
You'd be wasting your time going from the 18-135 to the 28-135.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's what I'm beginning to think. :-/

So given a choice between Sigma 17-70 mm and Tamron 17-50, you think the Tamron is better? Or are they pretty similar? If there's not much different between the two I think I'd prefer the Sigma because of the longer zoom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top