28-135 IS vs. 75-300 IS

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by john_fox|3, Feb 16, 2003.

  1. the price of them is about the same but i read many good things about
    the 28-135 and not very many good reviews of the 75-300 lens. do you
    think the 28-135 is that much better. it seems if the 28-135 is that
    much better it must be a best buy!
     
  2. I've used both the 28-135 and the 75-300 and the 28-135 is much sharper. It's my all around lens. Of Canon's cheaper x-300 zooms the 75-300 IS is one of the better ones, but that's not saying much.
     
  3. I have both of these lenses. I use the 28-135 IS a lot when I am traveling. It has good range for a single lens, especially for the price. I'm also very pleased with the shots from this lens. The 75-300 IS is a pretty decent lens if you can manage to stay around f/8 and somewhat shorter than 300mm. It's also sharper than the non-IS version of the same zoom that I had prior, at least in my experience. Sure, it's a little soft at 300mm, but what sub $500 300mm zoom isn't? When you need 300mm, sometimes getting a soft shot is better than not getting a shot at all. If you are not expecting National Geographic quality images, then you'll be fairly satisfied.

    That said, if you had to choose only one, then definitely go for the 28-135 IS first. It's a good all-around performer.
     
  4. Is a Ferrari better than a Hummer?

    These lenses are different beasts with different uses. Get the one you need. The 75-300 is useless for wide sweeping landscapes, the 28-135 is useless for closups of distant figures.
     
  5. Each of the two lenses has it's own application. For its own purpose,
    IMO the 28-135mm is the be better one. But if you consider
    the 75-200mm range, the 75-300mm IS USM is a good choice at this
    price level.
     
  6. I use a Kenko 1.5x teleconverter on my 28-135IS in a pinch and the results at 200mm are equal to the 75-300IS at 200mm. Beyond 200mm I found the 75-300 unacceptible anyway, so for only $100 and very little space and weight, I've got the same functionality as if I'd bought the 75-300IS.
     
  7. photodo rates the 28-135 IS at 3.5 and the 75-300 IS at 2.9[even lower than the non IS 75-300 rated at 3.1]. most reviews i read about the 28-135 IS say it is like a prosumer lens while the 75-300IS is rated like a kit lens with IS. if these ratings are true in real life that would make the 28-135 IS a real bargan seeing as how they are about the same price.
     
  8. The 28-135 uses a ring type USM, which results in fast AF and Full Time Manual focusing (FTM) at the same time. The 75-300 uses a micro motor USM, which results in slow AF and no FTM.

    I also use a Kenko 1.5x TC with the 28-135 and the results are amazingly good, although AF is poor with the combination.

    I also had the 75-300 IS and found it very decently compared to all the other low cost 70-300mm lenses I've tried.
     
  9. As everyone else has said, you are comparing two completely different lenses. It doesn't matter if Photodo says 2.9 versus 3.5; if you need to take closeup pictures of a window on the fourth story of a building, using a 75-300 is generally better than taking a picture with the 28-135 and blowing it up.

    As I understand it, Photodo's one-number rating is an average over focal lengths, center-to-corner MTF, etc, and it doesn't take into account manufacturing variations in lenses. That number would probably not tell you much about their overlap range (75-135), which is the "good" range of the 75-300 but not the best range of the 28-135. If you insist on using Photodo numbers then try comparing the 28-135 to the 28-105 instead ("0.2 less" but costs half as much).

    The reviews you read probably just indicate that it's hard to build a good, cheap telephoto zoom. No problem. I like my 75-300 IS; perhaps it's not a 70-200 L, but it's still a good lens.
     
  10. Is an apple better than an orange?
    Due to certain properties of optical glasses, telephoto zooms like the 75/100-300 lenses are pretty much doomed to poorer optical performance than shorter zooms like the 24/28-85/105/120/135 lenses are, unless you start using specialized (and expensive) materials like those used in Canon's L-series lenses or the comparable pro lenses from other manufacturers. So when it comes right down to it, yes, the 28-135 is a better lens, overall.
    But as others have pointed out, each lens has its uses, and neither can replace the other. If you're looking at buying a new lens, your thought process should be more like "What is wrong with my current lens(es) - should I add something longer than my longest lens, or wider than my widest lens, or replace a poor lens with a better one?" than "I want to buy a new lens, I've heard XYZ is a good lens, maybe I should buy it."
     

Share This Page