28-135 mm fCanon EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom lens

I am thinking of purchasing this lens. I have a trip planned to the

Grand Canyon in April. I have a Canon Rebel 2000 film camera.

Would this lens be a good choice?

Sounds like you may be outside with plenty of light.....this lens would be overkill.....if you are looking for images that you want to make 8x10 or larger....invest in a prime (non-zoom) 50 or 35 mm lens.......otherwise save your dollars.... if it's snapshots you are after....there are a few good 28-200...28-300 lenses that will fill the bill.

I have just purchased a 50 mm f1.8 will this be enough?

Good lens.....but given the venue......you might want something a touch wider....but on a budget.....there's nothing wrong with taking a few steps back to get the whole picture......photographers did it for years before wide angle lenses and zoom lenses.

Overkill? I own this lens and it is a nearly perfect walk around lens for both film and digital bodies. The IS works great, and the images really pop.

This lens will be great on a film camera for GCNP, and I've been there and done that.

 

Caveat: I'm not an habitual wide angle shooter, 28 was plenty for me. The tele range will be good for isolating landscape elements

 

Be sure to take a polarizer, not so much for darkening skies (you'll actually have to watch out for too much of that at those altitudes) but for cutting haze and getting the colors to pop

 

I think this is THE general vacation/walkaround lens

I agree with Jack. I would just add that if you use an aperature of f/8 or smaller, you'll end up with a lot more keepers.

You mean add a polarizer?

Hi Kathy, I think you`ll love this lens and probably live on your camera, the IS will give you extra stops for your early & late day photos. It has a 72mm filter size, Be sure to get the ``EW-78B2` lens hood with it. We`ve had one since they came out and its never dissapointed. Even for some wedding shots,Using it on 20D at present.But it is normally never off the EOS5.

 

good luck

It is a nice zoom but a bit on the big and beefy side. You might also consider the more

petite EF 24-85 3.5-4.5 USM. About half the size and weight and the extra 4mm on the

short end is very useful for landscapes.

Can't agree with Rick's negative comments about the 28-135 as a vacation lens. As others have said that is exactly what it was designed to do. A polarizer would be useful but don't use one unless you know how.

<p>This is my most-used lens, and if I'm travelling light and can only take one lens with me, this is the one. Optically, it's possibly the best Canon EF zoom lens which doesn't have the magical red ring and the letter L on it (and a huge price tag to match). I find its range to be very useful. And IS is very useful to me as well. There are plenty of comments and reviews regarding this lens on the net so you should have no trouble doing your research on this lens.</p>

 

<p>As someone else mentioned, this is not a particularly petite lens. I don't find its size a problem but I know some people do. Make sure you've tried one out in person and are comfortable with its size and weight before buying it.</p>

Absolutely this is a good lens, perfect for your trip. I'll bet it becomes your standard lens. It's quite sharp, AF is is quick, the IS is a wonderful tool. This lens will probably do 90% of everything you need in a lens.

 

Rick H.

A Rebel 2000 uses the smaller batteries C2r? in it will she

see much drain using the IS feature? Might want a few sets

of spare batteries for the Rebel.

I've never noticed particular battery drain with the IS, my batteries always lasted as long ( as many shots) as the manual said they should, minus about 5% , maybe. I think the flash is what eats batts, but you should ALWAYS have spares anyway

 

Of course test that lens for pic quality before you go, but I've shot at wider than f/8 with fine results. There is more QC variation on non-L lenses

<p>IS certainly draws some extra power; there are sensors and motors to move and they need power. How much? I don't know. Some people complain that their IS lenses kill batteries very quickly. I have had the 28-135 for a few years and the 300/4L IS USM for a couple of years and while I haven't been measuring my battery life, I don't think it's been unreasonably short. Certainly, I didn't notice a dramatic drop in battery life when I went from the 28-105 to the 28-135.</p>

 

<p>That said, carry spare batteries. Always. Whether you use IS or not. Lithium batteries provide almost their full power level until very late in life, and then die quite rapidly, so it's not unusual for the camera to show the full battery icon for a long time, and then quickly go from there to dead. Lithium batteries have a ten-year shelf life so it's not like you'll put a spare battery in your camera bag, then find it's dead two years later when you need it; it'll still be fresh.</p>

The 28-135 IS is by far my most useful lens, more than all my 28/50/85 primes combined

and my 24-85, 17-40, and 100-300 zooms. It works well in low light with the aid of IS,

and it does not perform poorly when <a href="http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hiro/feste/

galleria/pages/Monreale_4134.htm">wide open</a>. I wouldn't have been able to

capture this shot had it been necessary for me to switch lenses. The 28-135 IS is a

versatile travel lens. It is larger and heavier than the 24-85 (also a nice lens), but not

exceedingly so. Or perhaps I simply got used to the slight heft. Please visit a camera

store and compare it side by side. Good luck

One more thing, Phil Greenspun, the founder of Photo.net, wrote a <a href="http://

www.photo.net/us/sw/grand-canyon-rafting">Photo.net page on rafting through the

Grand Canyon</a>, you might enjoy it. Considering the fact that you'll be in a place

where the super-wide of a 17-40 may be useful, I'd add that it's a very good lens to

consider.

But I also assume that you'll continue with photography after the trip, so the 28-135 with

its greater focal range will

likely serve you well in future, beyond your trip to the Canyon. I think you're

looking at two good lenses if you're considering both a 17-40L and 28-135. I have both

and am happy with the resulting images, in fact I don't think you could go wrong with

either. Here's a holiday <a href="http://

www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hiro/feste/">page I recently made</a> with photos I took using

my 28-135, a 28/1.8 and 50/1.4. It's nice to use primes when you have the luxury of

time to switch lenses and zoom with your feet, but with the type of travel photography I

prefer, I'd lose most of my good shots if I were restricted to primes. They serve their

purpose when available light is low, for shallow depth of field, and for increased

sharpness. But it's the photographer, not the lens, that creates good photos. A good

photographer will take good photos with poor lenses, but a poor photographer with great

lenses will still take poor photos. I don't mean to sermonize, the point I'd like to offer

when I say that is, the lenses

you're considering, the 24-85 and 28-135 included, are all good lenses from which you

can produce good photos. It doesn't have to be an "L" to produce good photos.

If you are only going to take one lens, this is the best one to take for the money, IMO. Focal length pairs well with a rebel 2000.