EF 28-135mm lens - thinking about buying

I have always been blah about my EFS 17-85 IS lens - good closeup, but not

really a zoom, pretty slow - but this weekend I was reading about a EF 28-135 IS

lens for about $350.00. Does anyone have any hands-on experience with the lens

and what are their thoughts. This would be a primary lens for an XTI which I

use less often now I have a 30D/70-200 combo. Also, what do they use the lens

for? Nature? Portrait, etc?

I've used the 28-135 for a couple years as a walkaround lens mostly for nature/landscape/flowers type work. It was better on film, but is still good with the 1.6 crop. Fairly slow at all but it's widest setting, IS works well even for first gen for non-moving subjects though. Good all around lens that i don't plan on giving up anytime soon. Think it's well worth what you'll pay for it, haven't used a 17-85 so I can't comment on the image quality difference.

I had both. Pretty much the same lens. IS upgrade and EFS on the new 17-85. I had two 17-85is. The first was very sharp, the second was ok. The 28-135is was as sharp or more so than the first 17-85. Great lens, but I used it on my 5D. I thought it was too long on my 20D. So if you don't need the wide end, its a great lens, but it is a 50mm equivalent on the XTi. I'd personally get the 17-40L as a better walkaround zoom. Paired with your 70-200, its perfect.

 

Mark

<p><i>"...but not really a zoom"</i></p>

<p>What exactly do you mean by that? It is a zoom. Back to the topic, I really don't see much point in this "upgrade", as the two lenses are optically similar, as well as being equally slow (They are both f5.6 at 85mm). It all depends on which focal lengths you use most. If you can cope with the loss of wide angle but the gain in telephoto, then getting the 28-135 may be worth it. However, you'll have the exact same complaints with that lens as you do with your 17-85.

i 'had' one.. thank God its stolen.. :)

wasnt really my favorite lens. it wasnt very sharp, so i guess the IS on this is not really worth it. well, maybe its just my copy, but i've heard complaints too. and also, it is not wide enough for a walk around lens

I had one and used it one weekend. Took it back the next week and bought an 85 f/1.8.

 

It's sharp enough for most everyone not obsessed with resolution but it was too damn slow to focus. That and the image shifting in the viewfinder as it focused pissed me off.

<I>"That and the image shifting in the viewfinder as it focused pissed me off."</I>

<P>

Are we still hearing that? I thought we all got over this. :)

<P>

I had a 28-135 and liked it, but never used it when I got a crop frame digital. There is no wide end on it. It was consumed by the 1.6x crop. If you want better the 17-55 f/2.8 IS is better - a lot better.

The 17-55/2.8 IS is the ultimate lens in this range but if it's too costly consider the Tamron 17-50/2.8 which is also very good.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Forgot to add that as you "have a 30D/70-200 combo" I think you do not need any lens past 70mm.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I can't believe all the negative responses. If they all need a L lens to satisfy their pickyness then only buy L glass. The 28-135IS is a good lens that even a lot of pros have in their collection. I even use the 28-200 that no snob would use & I find a way to get shots that no snob would guess which lens I used. Look, if you get the 28-135IS and tell others you used a 24-105L they would be amazed at your shots. Trust me. Flaws are found based on the lens stated and the reviews people read. The 28-135IS is a great basic zoom that's nothing spectacular, but for the price is a very nice zoom that many many around the world capture great shots with. Its slow, but IS makes up for this. If your not a Natl. Geographic pro photographer this lens will make you happy for a lifetime, unless your a snob who has read too many lens reviews.

For the price it is a very nice lens. Reasonably sharp (mine was more than "reasonable" - on film), but not too fast... On 1.6x crop you loose wide ange (not very wide to start with). I guess I would stick to 17-85.

I use to use the 28-135 quite a bit with the 350D, mainly as a normal to short tele lens. Overall the zoom range was a bit unexciting on the 350D and I always paired it with something wider.

 

It also doubled as an excellent general purpose lens on film, which I still shoot quite a bit. I don't think it would have been my first choice if I were only shooting digital.

`my EFS 17-85 IS lens - good closeup, but not really a zoom`

 

Hi Tim, your statement is a lil unclear, the way I read it says 17 85 not long enough for your purpose? may be you can help. I`ve had the 28 135 since it was introduced and it worked fine on 35mm, even used it on a secound body for weddings. On the x1.6 bodies it does not get as much use but still has some use. for slower sports like lawn bowls, golf tournaments it is a reasonable FL. If you like a lot of out of area background blur it will not do much so is not an idea portrait lens but I have used it ok with plain coloured B/g`s.

 

Its as slow most probably as the 17 85, but are you keeping it as well. with the 28 135 on one body and 70 200 on the other you cover a good range if that suits you. Personally I think for best the 24 70 is hard to beat. Consider digging a little deeper and also check the 24 105f4 IS, now I`m not an L person, I`m mainly looking at focal length the constant f4 and optional IS just for a slightly quicker lens. While I consider the 28 135 as one of canon`s better consumer lenses I do often use primes in its place for static objects and do get better results eg 28mmf2.8,50f1.8,100f2.8 & 135mmf2.8.

 

Many folks have been unhappy with the 28 135 but I have no problems with it, there could be some sample variation, the front element often feels a little sloppy but mines never got any worse than it was new, sometimes you might not want an overly sharp lens a shot I`ll show you gives an idea of the copy I have and the b/g which many might say not enought blur and for some may not worry.

 

good luck..

And a 100% crop

 

HTH

>> Its slow, but IS makes up for this.

 

Not so.

 

1. It is true only if your subjects are standing still.

 

2. It slows AF down.

 

3. It makes your viewfinder dimmer. A major problem with those tiny APS viewfinders, at least IMHO.

 

Do not get me wrong. IS is a great feature and I personally like it a lot but it does not compensate for the lens' speed.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

I guess what I am looking for is something with a little more reach. The 70-200 does that well, but doesnt have much on the short, wide end. I thought the 28-135 would be a intermediate step; I already have a 50 and 85 prime. Is there a noticiable difference in sharpness compared to the 17-85? I seemed to get the idea there was a sharpness issue. Perhaps I need to check the archives.

 

OK - if not the 28-135, then what? What would you get, for less than $750.00, that covers a similar range.

Hi Tim,

 

I've used the 28-135 quite a bit on 1.6X cameras like yours, before I got a 24-70/2.8. Most of my use was sports and event photography.

 

I found the effective "normal to 200+mm" angle of view on the crop-sensor cameras very useful and a good compliment to the 70-200/2.8 IS I use on another camera body, and a 17-35/2.8L (and/or some wide prime lenses) I've got in the bag with me most of the time for wider work.

 

I got a lot of good shots with the 28-135, found it to be plenty sharp and to give good color rendition. It's a decent lens with some limitations. I have not used the EF-S lens you mentioned, so cannot compare them directly.

 

My "issues" with the 28-135:

 

1. Zoom creep. When carrying the lens around mounted on a camera, with it hanging nose down, the zoom would self-extend. That was a bit of a bother, mostly because the lens was a loaner and I didn't want to damage it, figured the extended barrel was a bit more vulnerable. It was also bothersome because the zoom didn't stay where I was using it most, and I'd end up having to constantly rezoom. Perhaps this could be corrected with some dampening grease, which would need to be added by a camera tech.

 

2. Variable aperture. I used the lens with external flashes a lot (550EX in my case). It works fine in any TTL mode, but any variable aperture lens can be a problem when working to balance ambient light with the flash, and/or operating the flash manually. So this was even more of an issue when working with studio strobes, which are essentially purely manual flash. The problem is that as you zoom the effective aperture changes. Now, since you use the aperture to adjust the camera for flash exposures, you basically should recalculate every time you zoom, with any variable aperture lens. ETTL will correct for this, but too often I am using other methods and so I try to stick with constant aperture zooms.

 

3. Large lens hood will partially obstruct many built-in flashes. Not really an issue for me because I virtually never use built-in flashes. However, a friend often found it a problem for her. I do recommend using a lens hood most of the time to best protect the lens' large front element.

 

4. The 28-135 is not a sealed lens, like L-series. This is important to me because I'm often working in dusty conditions. I did not have a problem with the 28-135 using it under these conditions a few times, but was concerned I eventually would if I continued to do so.

 

5. The relatively small max aperture at longer focal lengths is not very conducive to portraiture and soft backgrounds.

 

The image quality of the 28-135 was decent. The feel of the focus and zoom rings were about typical of today's lenses (i.e., not as smooth and precise feeling as many lenses in the past... but perhaps they could be "tuned" by a tech, I don't know). It uses 72mm filters, which I have a selection of, so that didn't concern me. It's a USM lens, which makes for faster and quieter AF, as well as Full Time Manual focus override, something I use a lot on all my lenses. The Image Stabilization is effective and useful at the longer end of the lens' focal length range, although it's not the latest and greatest version of I.S.

 

These are the considerations about the lens, as they apply to me and my work. Only you can say if the above factors are of any concern to you or not.

 

You may or may not be better off saving up for a pricier lens like the 24-70/2.8 or the 24-105/4 I.S. I suppose it really depends upon how you plan to use the lens and what focal length(s) is(are) most important to you.

 

Alternatively, you might look at used lenses or some third party lenses in the same or similar focal length ranges. There are a number of possibilities in and around this focal length range, within your budget.

 

Among third party lenses, the most similar is the Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6, $300. There are also Tokina 50-135/2.8 (DX or crop sensor D-SLR only, $350), Sigma 24-70/2.8 ($430) and Sigma 50-150/2.8 HSM (DC or crop sensor D-SLR only, $680). I haven't used any of these, so can't really comment on them.

 

Among used lenses, the Canon 28-70/2.8L is a very popular veteran you might be able to find within your budget.

 

You might instead choose to add some primes to your kit. Used Canon 28/1.8 sell for around $300. It's very compact and useful, plus nicely faster than the zooms. Either the EF 24/2.8 or EF 35/2 are said to be an excellent lenses, are reasonably priced new and used, and are both quite compact. Personally I have not bought either of these, mostly because they lack USM. (I have Nikkor AI-S 24/2.8 and 35/2 that I might adapt instead, to use as a manual focus, manual aperture lenses on Canon. These excellent but used lenses cost me a bit over $100 each.)

 

The Canon 135/2L II is a bit over your budget new, at $870, but you might find a used one, or some other useful and reasonably fast 135mm. (Again, I've got a superb Nikkor AI-S 135/2.8 and may adapt it. It too would be manual focus and aperture only, though. This used lens cost me roughly $60. Nikon to EF mount adapters are about $20 each.)

 

What about a lens that would also give you true macro capabilities? Is that something you might want? A Sigma 105/2.8 Macro sells new for $400. Tokina offers a 100/2.8 Macro for the same price. There's also a Sigma 150/2.8 Macro, but it's pricier at $600.

 

Personally I avoid EF-S and other crop-sensor-only lenses, as a rule, because I also use two EOS3s and anticipate using 1.3X or full frame D-SLRs in the not-too-distant future.

 

A final possibility, considering the rest of your kit that you have mentioned(50, 85 & 70-200) you might be best getting a Canon 17-40/4L to cover the wider end of things. That's what you will lack, when you give up the 17-85. The 17-40 sells for $650 new. As an L-series, it will be good quality construction, fairly well sealed and include the lens hood. (Note: used 17-35/2.8L sell for a little more, but the extra f-stop may be worth it to you.)

 

Hey, only you can decide what's really important to you!

 

Have fun shopping!