Good reasonably priced telezoom? 28-135IS maybe?

Hi, I am looking to pick up a good quality short to medium tele-

zoom. I am looking at the Canon 28-135 IS as I know a few people

who swear by it, but other people think it is only a marginal lens.

My main lens right now is a 70-200 F4 L, and although I wish I could

have gotten the faster lense, I am very please with the optical

quality of this lens. My body is a rebel 2000 right now, but I am

seriously considering upgrading to a D60 in the next year. I would

say my price range for the lens is anything under $600. Is there

anything else I should look at? I'd love to get another L lens, but

I can't find anything in that range for under $1k, and I since I do

a lot of trekking with this setup, having a nice range from 28-200

with my 1.4x is practical and lightweight. I know people say that

lens is soft at 135, but I am mostly concerned with the quality from

28-100 or so since for anything longer, I will throw on the beast...

 

Thanks for the suggestions!

I would strongly suggest trying out the IS lens first.

I bought one for the same reason you are looking for one.

The IS made me SICK!!! The movement was very distracting.

 

I settled on canon 28-105mm

Bought for over half the price of the 28-135mm

(I also bought a 85mm/1.8 and 35mm/2.0)

 

I have also heard good things about the 24-85mm canon lens.

USM is very nice!

something else to consider is the sigma 28-70mm/2.8 EX

The 28-135 IS is arguably the best non-L zoom from Canon, with the 28-105 and 24-85 close behind. All three will perform quite well when stopped down a stop or two.

 

The IS gives an extra two stop of handholdability and costs the most. About $400.

 

The 28-105 is the the smallest which is great for trekking. About $200.

 

The 24-85 give you a bit more on the wide end plus it shares the same flter size with your 70-200/4L (67mm). About $300.

 

Good luck.

I use the 24-85 and 70-200 F4L combo. Since any wide to tele zoom is not going to be as good optically as the 70-200 F4L, then there's no point going over the 70mm mark, because you'll always be better off using the 70-200 F4L, excepting situations where you need the IS of the 28-135.

 

However, with the D60's 1.6X FOV crop, the "wide" 24mm of the 24-85 becomes a not so wide 38.4mm. Thus, the 24-85 is probably a better choice with an eye to the digital body.

 

The 28-135, 28-105 and 24-85 are all perfectly comparable on image quality, with the 28-135 just sneaking ahead a little. IS is a VERY useful technology, and just takes some getting used to. Don't try to move the lens about too much with IS on, and you won't get seasick.

 

The old 28-80 F2.8-4L wasn't a stunning lens optically, and the 28-70 demands a premium. However, let's look at another possibility...

 

The quality of the 70-200 F4L is not in question, and we know that the wide-tele zooms mentioned will NOT match it. However, for your $600 budget, you can get an 50mm F1.8mk II ($70), 24mm F2.8 ($275) and 28mm F2.8 ($160) or 35mm F2 ($230) lenses, covering the same range with the 70-200 covering all telephoto lengths. This setup will get you the quality you're after, although not the convenience or USM.

The 28-135 IS will be a very good lens. Buy it if the IS appeals to you. It's great for handheld photography. If the IS doesn't appeal to you, I think the 24-85 is a perfect match for the 70-200 - not much overlap in range, and same filter size. This would make an ideal two lens set-up. Otherwise, if quality is your concern, I echo Isaac - get some primes. I think a 50, 35 and 24 would be perfect. Or save up and go really crazy - the 24/3.5L Tilt-Shift and a 1.4X TC which could be used on both the 24 TS (for about 34 mm) and your 70-210.

Yeah for the D60 these lenses are going to start at 40-45mm so I hope you aren't a wide angle fanatic.

<p>The 28-135 is a very good lens. It's better than the 28-105, which is also quite a good lens - see <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html">http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html</a> for some evidence.</p>

 

<p>Another option to consider might be a used 28-70 f/2.8L USM or 28-80 f/2.8-4L USM, if you can find one that fits your price range. That would satisfy your love for L lenses :-) and get you a lens that's faster and no doubt better than the 28-135.</p>

Excellent lens, my classmate and co-photo editor of my high school's yearbook has one of these lenses. Very fast lens in my opinion, and I prefer to use it without the IS, but IS is very useful in low light situations.

The 28-135 IS is the only non-L zoom I own; I am picky about image quality, and IMO this lens is a surprising bargain.

 

One of the best lenses available for the Leica M is the 135 APO Asph. A well-known (and somewhat controversial) lens-tester for Leica has recently begun testing some Canon gear. When he compared the 28-135 IS at 135 to the 135 APO, he found that at slower shutter speeds (I assume around 1/30) the IS was the better performing of the two due to IS compensating for the camera-shake. The point being that raw optical quality is not everything, and other factors can dramatically impact final image quality. In this respect, the 28-135 is a winner.

 

Cheers,

The 28-135 IS is the only lens I use on my Elan 7E. This is my "Point And Shoot" system along with a 420EX flash. I generally hand-hold and use IS.

 

I am quite pleased with it. My lens does have some "Barrel Distortion" wide open, however.

 

Enjoy

If you're talking about reasonably priced (emphasize reasonably priced) zooms the 28-135IS is probably the best in this range. I use it all the time and have few complaints, optically at least. The only other ones in this price range are the 24-85 and 28-105. The L lenses are much, much more expensive so comparisons are largely irrelevant if you're on a budget. The IS is very nice to have in situations where your tripod is unavailable (travel).

I've just got a D60 and a 28-135 IS USM - I'm very pleased with it. IS is great in low light for hand-held shots, in some ways it compensates for the 3.5 largest aperture. With 1.6 multiplier it comes out at 45-216mm, not so great for wide angles - it also makes a reasonable Macro with minimum focus distance of 50cm. All round it is IMHO excellent value. I have not seen the distortion and vignetting mentioned in some lens tests. (probably 'cos the D60 sensor is smaller than 35mm film)