EF 28 -135??

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi folks

I saw this lens the other day and it looks like a fair deal for my needs...
Not as expensive as the 24-105L with comparable speed (though not constant f)

What it lacks in f it makes up in reach on a 1,6 FOV sensor.(350/20D)

I was considering getting this as a replacement for my EF-S 17 - 85.

Any comments appreciated:thumbs:
 
Are you referring to the Canon 28-135mm IS ?

If you are then don't bother. The lens produces soft images and your current 17-85mm IS is probably better.
 
Heya SDK

Yes it was the IS version I looked at...

Soft you say...Pity...

I never really considered the intermediate lenses but occasionally some of them look good.

Thanks for your advice:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
 
I'd beg to differ. I use mine on my 1dmkII and get pretty nice results actually. yes its no L glass but I'm pretty pleased actually. that said the 24-105 is way better in build and sharpness, no contest wide open, stopped down (as you'd expect) differences deminish. You wil always have trouble with a +4x zoom
 
1):thinking: :thinking: :thinking:

2)problems with a 4x zoom?

Guys I value both of your opinions so would you mind showing examples?
 
Just to throw another option in consider the 28-105 F3.5-4.5. Everything here except the last one was taken with it on a 20D. Under rated IMO :)
 
Absolutely nothing wrong with that!!

Thanks Dod.:thumbs:

Only thing is I would consider the 28-135 for that extra bit of reach...:thinking:
 
used the 28-135 for last 4/5 years for working portrait s. No problems with results across the board and IS useful. However build quality very suspect. Mine repaired 2/3 times after being tapped as walking about with lens extended. Not a pro lens but useful studio with natural light. Hope thats of use.
 
I owned a 28-135 for a year and it was very soft between F3.5 - F5.6 and 28-50mm but after that it does improve. Unless you have an image from another better lens then it's impossible to judge sharpness by simply looking at an image taken with it.


I sold the 28-135 IS and bought a 24-70L F2.8 as it was just unacceptable.

This comparison gives you some idea of the softness.
It wasn't a bad lens either - at F8 and after 50mm it's on par with the 17-40, so I guess if you're happy using the lens in that range that it's fine :)

Canon 28-135 IS
28mm @ F4

28-135@28-F4.jpg



Canon 17-40L
28mm @ F4

17-40@28-F4.jpg
 
OK, I'm convinced

Thanks for your trouble SDK :thumbs:

I was considering this lens for wide open use at the long end and this will obviously not work well for shots that do not require a diffuser or soft focus filter!!:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
 
god! you got a terrible copy there...I guess I was lucky, mine's approaching the crispyness as my 24-70 which itself is very nice!
 
Before buying the 24-105 i had the 28-105 which i bought in favour of the 28-135 precisely because i had read that the -135 was soft anbd inferior. I have no direct experience of this, but the 28-105 was a great little lens with good bq and nice light weight. Colour rendition was good and contrast great. Petal lens hood a MUST though!!
 
Is it correct then to say that between the 24-105 and/or the 24-70 one cannot really go wrong?

Preferably both:shrug: :thumbs: ?
 
Anton Roland said:
Is it correct then to say that between the 24-105 and/or the 24-70 one cannot really go wrong?

Preferably both:shrug: :thumbs: ?
Click to expand...

LOL - depends on what you're after. Obvious 2.8 advantage in the 24-70, but then you'd want to pair it with the 70-200 rather than 24-105??
 
This is the thing now...

I am spoiled with the 70-200's f/2.8 and now consider this the minimum f on any lens I would want to buy....

The 24-70 lacks in reach for my personal preference and the 24-105 does not have that nice f/2,8...

I think we should DEMAND that the good Canon people immediately build the 24-105 with a constant f of 2:nuts:
 
I'm up for that. Dont forget the 24-105 has IS and i can honestly say that its marvelous on this particular lens. i can confidently handhold at 1/2 second which is great for interiors of churches, cathederals etc and great for lazy landscape :)
 
Looks like you and I are equally shaky :bonk:

I'm with you on this argument and I'm sure it is a great lens.

My best reason for not having bought it yet is:

1) The push pull zoom (sucking dust) and

2) With f/4 where does the best sharpness start...f/8?

:thinking: :suspect: :thinking: :bonk:
 
Its actually a mechanical zoom, Anton, not push-pull in this case. Its also weather sealed (just wish my bodies were!!!) so moisture and dust on a day to day basis shouldn't be an issue.

5.6 is the sweetspot for me (or mine) - lovely lens :) What more can i say :clap:
 
shiato storm said:
god! you got a terrible copy there...I guess I was lucky, mine's approaching the crispyness as my 24-70 which itself is very nice!
Click to expand...
Like I said - My lens was fine, it's just the 28-135 is poor.
Do you have some comparisons of your 28-135 and 24-70? I find it hard to believe that the 28-135 matches the 24-70 with wide apertures but I'm willing to be proved wrong :)
 
Jonnyreb said:
Its actually a mechanical zoom, Anton, not push-pull in this case. Its also weather sealed (just wish my bodies were!!!) so moisture and dust on a day to day basis shouldn't be an issue.

5.6 is the sweetspot for me (or mine) - lovely lens :) What more can i say :clap:
Click to expand...


You are right, poor choice of words on my side...what I am trying to get at is that the lens's overall exterior dimensions change...

This makes it prone to sucking dust and can be annoying.

When you say the lens has weather seals I would immediately assume it is less prone to dust sucking than, say the EF-S 17-85 would be..:shrug:

It being an L I would expect it to be so...
 
Definately not, no. There's also no zoom creep which is a bonus (and as you would expect from L) :)
 
Have to say I dont have a shot to hand to prove it BUT I cannot remember one as bad as that from the 28-135 in the time I used it. Maybe a QA problem with one lens. Dunno. But will restate 'no quality problems working full range in studio set up. As a precaution. Why not get the lens take a couple of test shots and return it if not happy. My usual method of purchase.
 
I should have stated this earlier - my comparisons above are 100% crops
 
the size of a 24-105 2.8 would be quite large though I'm guessing...just about get away with it in the f4 with noted light fall off, 2.8 might be too harsh
 
The 24-105 is not much different from the 17-85 is size BUT it is in terms of build and sharpeness :) The 24-105 has the newer IS system too which is great - depending on what you are shooting the 24-105 often beats the 24-70 - I have both and I love my 24-105 for range etc :)

I also have 2 BNIB ones for sale £600 plus P&P :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top