Walkabout lens advice

Fortress

Fortress

Suspended / Banned
Messages
41
Name
Most call me Fortress (U'd understand if u met me)
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I would like to buy the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM as a walk about lens, but after recently purchasing a 100-400 f/4 L i feel another £500 minimum (ebay) is not really in my best interest if i wish to remain married.

So my question is this, is the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM a good subsitute for the 24-105??

cheers
 
Can't comment about Canon specifics, but there's also the Tamron f/3.5-5.6 24-135mm (no anti-shake mechanism).

On a cropped sensor 24mm is far more use to me than 28mm. Yours has a 1.6x crop factor, so there's less of an advantage.

The slower (aperture) lens isn't a disadvantage in daylight, and if you're using flash you're likely to be at f/5.6.
 
If you shoot with manual exposure then the variable max aperture of the 28-135 might annoy you no end, as might the relatively slow f/5.6 vs f/4. Don't forget to price in a hood for the cheaper lens as well.
 
I have the 28-135 IS lens. It is OK, but it makes me feel that it needs more light than the 70-300 4-5.6 IS lens I have.
Focusing can sometimes be a bit slow (but possibly this is only when I have the linear polariser on it.)
I have noticed on some of my recent shots, that the top corners can be a bit darker on the sky.
 
In a word NO (imo).
The 24-105 is a fine walk about lens and would complement your 100-400 very well.
I have both these lens along with the 10-22 EFS. This (imo) this is the best group of lenses covering that range of focal length without spending mega bucks.
davol
 
I used to have a 24-105 F4L as a walkabout, and it's a good lens. I sold it to help purchase a 24 1.4L, and will be getting a sigma 24-70 F2.8 macro to replace it.

Perhaps the glass is not of the quality of the canon L, but you get F2.8, and because it's a walkabout lens the ultimate image quality is not such an issue, as I have other lenses that meet specific roles.

The Canon 28-135 is not a bad lens, and as long as you don't expect ultra sharp images, should do, but it's getting a bit long in the tooth now.
 
Thanks for the opinions guys, my aim is to get shot of my 2 EF-S lens and just have the 100-400L and a half decent walkabout, i'm not too fussed about wide angle, as i'm not really into scenery shots so the 28-135 would be fine for me.

I know i would get alot better quality images out of the 24-105 L, but i really can't justify the cost at the moment,(maybe in a year or so).

So i'm pretty much hoping that the 28-135 is the next best thing, also i know other brand make some good lens, but i would like to keep the canon, i'm just weird like that :bonk:

Also at a later date i may get the 50mm f/1.4 just incase i ever get the chance of some studio work, as i would really like to get into b&w erotic images
 
What type of stuff will you be snapping on your walkabouts?
Here are some photos I took with the 28-135.

Shield
Waterfall

I ain't a good shot though. These were both hand-held, reasonable light at Windsor Castle, Auto-focus. They are a little soft if you look at them 100%, but if you can live with A5 photos (or are a better shot than I, these are apparently 1/50 and 1/100s)

Here is one where the light is getting pretty poor, it is just starting to drizzle. Again quite soft, maybe just due to the slow shutter, but none of them required the aperture to be fully open.
Car
Depends what you will be happy with.
 
to be honest i'm mostly going to be using the 100-400L when i'm at bike meets, although i'll use the smaller lens(whichever i get) at cadwell and mallory if i get my usual spots, other than that i'll mostly be using the 28-135 for HDR stuff, i take shot of a varity of subjects, buildings, lamp posts, bric-a-brak shop, anything that i think i can make a decent HDR image of.

I know the 24-105L would be better for the HDR aswell as a walkabout, but like i said earlier i can't justify the expense right now, where as the 28-135 is around £200 off fleebay and it's got to be a better lens than my 18-55, as basically thats all i'm after at the moment, a bettlens than what i've got, but with the expense of going to an L lens, the L lens will be my xmas pressy to myself :D
 
The 28-135 isn't a desperate lens and provides reasonable snaps for the outlay...Mrs CB uses one as her "do all" lens on a 30D. The build quality falls well below L standards and older ones suffer zoom creep. It really needs to be used at f/6.3-f/11 to get the best out of it.
Good value for money if expectations aren't excessive and pixel peeping's not your thing.

Bob
 
Cheers CB, that's exactly what i needed to know, the 28-135 is better than the 18-55 IS and obviously not as good as the 24-105 L, cool....... looks like i'll be purchasing the 28-135 and saving up for the 24-105 L.

Thanks alot guys, sometimes these decisions are very hard to make and bouncing ideas of you guys really helps.
 
cheers Bob, that was really informative, i can only see a small quality diffence between the 2 lens' i'll be perfectly happy with the 28-135 now, might not even bother upgrading to the 24-105L.

Thanks again people for all the advice.
 
I had one for a bit and found it ok stopped down,the worst thing I found with it was flare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top