Canon 28-135mm on a full frame camera? Opinions please?

Hello everyone,

 

I own a 5d markii and am looking to purchase the canon 28-135mm lens.

I would be mainly using it on holidays, hence the reason for not purchasing a very very expensive lens! I wish I had the bank balance to!

 

So, based on using the lens mainly outside and occasionally inside using flash.

 

Thank you for your opinions in advance!

<p>I picked up a used one (for use on my 5d mark II) for only $200...and for the price, it's not a bad lens. I remember being pleased with its performance when used stopped down, though I haven't used it much since I bought it, and I can't really comment on its performance at or near maximum aperture. </p>

<p>That lens comes in an EF-S that is for crop sensor only... and it looks like it also is available as an EF for FF. What are you currently using? Make sure when you buy it is an EF and not an EF-S.<br>

Richard</p>

<p>The EF 28-135mm IS lens is an old classic that was originally released back in film days. Like all EF lenses (<em>NOT</em> EF-S), it will fit on any Canon EOS camera ever made.</p>

<p>The IS is an early generation product, but works well, all the same. The lens is often over-looked and under-appreciated. It's an excellent bargain lens for those who can't see going so far financially as the EF 24-105mm IS L lens.</p>

<p>The Canon 28-135 IS f3.5 - 5.6 lens I used to have was an EF lens - designed for full frame. It was a reasonable quality lens and quite good at the short end without in any way being exceptional. (At least my copy wasn't exceptional - you might be luckier than I was). If that is the limit of your budget that is fine, otherwise I would maybe think about the Canon 24-105 L which would match the capabilities of your Canon 5D II better.</p>

<p>AFAIK there is an old EF <strong>2</strong>8-135 IS USM and a very new EFs <strong>1</strong>8-135 IS STM. I have used neither, but the 28-135 is a very well respected lens, and I'd trust it to be a solid performer. I believe it predates the 24-105 L, and was one of the main mid range zoom lenses for Canon shooters before that lens was introduced. It also predates the EFs mount by a long shot, so it was definitely designed with FF in mind - well, film actually. Seeing what a bargain the 28-135 is today on the used market, it would seem ideal for your purposes.</p>

<p>The 28-135 IS lens was introduced at the same time as the EOS 3, it was more or less advertised as the standard zoom lens for the EOS-3, at least the camera was often shown with this lens. I have used it mainly on film and while it has its disadvantages (zoom creep, distortion) it is a fine performer.</p>

<p>We have both the 28-135 and the 24-105; the 28-135 is a great "second-choice" if my spouse has the 24-105 and won't give it up. </p>

<p>I have used it for years. It performs very well for such an inexpensive piece of glass (even on my 5D and 5D2). I found that, overall, it was a smidge softer, and a smidge slower than my 24-105/4L (which I then sold and got a 24-70/2.8 - since I had a 28-135 to play second fiddle). </p>

<p>When my first 28-135's IS started acting funny, I happily laid down another $250 for another.</p>

<p>The only significant flaw I found in it's performance was that in some strong offset lighting situations, hazing would flood the frame and destroy the contrast. Only happened at certain angles, and with certain types of light, but the problem is completely cured if you get a lens hood.</p>

 

<p>For the intended use it will do nicely. Get the hood, wheher Canon or Canon Copy. For your trip, buy and learn to use a polarizer.</p>

<p>The 28-135 is indeed a "good" lens, but it's a good lens on a stellar camera. Frankly you would have done better with a better lens on a lesser camera.</p>

<p>I believe it was the first Canon zoom lens to have IS. Stop it down a stop or so and it is A-OK!</p>

<p>I used the 28-135 for over 10 years, both on film cameras and on my crop DSLRs, all with excellent results. I'm in the process of buying another as a back-up to my 24-105 to use on my 1v when the 24-105 is on my 7D. I really like the 28-135 a lot and agree that it's underrated. It has limitations for sure but used properly it can deliver the goods.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AFAIK there is an old EF <strong>2</strong>8-135 IS USM and a very new EFs <strong>1</strong>8-135 IS STM.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... and the latter does not fit onto the 5DII that the OP is using. For that matter there is an even older EF 35~135USM, and I think an older still non-USM version, but it is the EF 28~135 that is at issue here. I think it was actually the second IS lens, the first being the 75~300, later replaced by the much better 70~300.</p>

<p>My wife had the 28~135 for a number of years, and I used it occassionally. In my experience the 28~135 was not a bad lens, but nothing to write home about optically. However, its biggest defect was its poor build quality, allowing serious wobble to develop in its double-extension zoom mechanism.</p>

<p>Apparently the posters here feel that using this lens is like kissing your sister!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I believe it was the <em>first</em> Canon zoom lens to have IS (emphasis added)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, that honor goes to the <strong>Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM</strong> (e.g, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_75-300mm_lens">link</a>). I think that is another underrated lens; but it was clearly not one of the top Canon lenses ever, except for the IS. I had one and used it for many years to good effect.</p>

<p>I would miss being able to go out to 24mm.</p>

<p>I never used the lens. But a few (seems many) years back, my friend and I did a causal comparison: my 20D+24-105 and his 20D+28-135, no significant difference was observed.<br>

If your bank account allows, get the 24-105, a great travel lens for FF cameras, for the 4mm extra reach at the wider end. Otherwise, the 28-135 is a very good choice for 5D's.</p>

 

<p>I used to have this lens. Its an ok performer but a bit soft unless stopped down a stop or two. Even at f8-11 it is still not a sharp and contrasty as the 24-105 f4L. But it harks from the day when Canon used to be able to make a lens for $350 (instead of $1500) that still made people happy.<br>

The IS is not as good as the later generations of IS but IMO the first two stops of IS are the most valuable anyway.</p>

<p>I started off with film SLR using this lens' cousin, the 28-105. I found it extremely versatile, so I suspect you will likely find the additional 30mm on the long end and the option of image stabilisation, only serve to enhance that usability. Because it is relatively inexpensive, you don't need to worry too much about it when you travel. I'd go for it. When you eventually have the cash, you can upgrade to something like the 24-105L.</p>

<p>...I'd forgotten about that aspect: 'minimal risk' I often take it to the beach with me or out and about when I don't need the 'creme de la creme' of optics, but still want good coverage and reasonable performance.</p>

<p>I've gotten these in a few kits, and one particular sample turned out to be a keeper. Got it with a 40D in 2008. Took it everywhere for the intended purpose of general use. Found it unusually sharp, so I used in a few live events and concerts -where the IS came in handy, (sample below). I received two more from 7D kits of recent, and after testing all three, found the old one still sharper than new. Kept it and sold of the new ones.<br>

<br />While on the subject of cheap lenses, thanks to post processing tools and posting small files online. You'll find additional room to forgive these lenses. </p><div></div>