Experience with 28-135 IS...

[cnhoff]

As some might have read some time ago, i had the opportunity to swap

my 28-105 f3.5-4.5 for a 28-135 IS for no money. Unlike i had planned,

i can try out and compare both now, so here are some of my experiences

with those lenses.

 

After shooting some slide rolls, i can hardly tell a difference

between those two, either viewed with a Rodenstock 4x or

scanned@4000dpi. They both deliver good pictures with nice sharpness

and contrast. Compared to my old Tamron 28-200 both have L-like quality ;)

 

The 28-105 has some visible distortion at the long end, the 28-135

doesn't in my opinion, but that's about it, when i comes to differences.

 

The 28-135 goes to f5.6 pretty soon, somewhere above 100mm, that could

be better, but actually f4.5 compared to f5.6 is not a big deal, not

even one f-stop. IS helps a lot on the 28-135, i successfully handheld

1/30-1/60 at 135mm. You can even see the image stabilize in the

viewfinder, when you turn it on.

 

The only thing that annoys me a little bit about the 135 (besides

increased size and weight, which is no problem for me) is the fact,

that there is some hunting for focus. Even though, it is not really

bad, i can clearly see a difference between the 135 and the 105, which

locks faster and more convenient.

 

Do you guys have this also, or is it just my sample?!

[lotsawa]

> there is some hunting for focus

 

Might be because the 28-135 is a bit slower, especially at the long end (f5.6 vs. f4.5)? Just a guess.

[beauh44]

Hi Christian, I don't use my 28-135mm too much anymore but I never noticed its AF being all that slow compared to similar variable aperture (and relatively slow) zooms. The body has a lot to do with it - my 20D has much quicker AF than my 10D, especially in low light. It sounds like your lens is working fine. Good luck!

[krieves]

I've had my 28-135 IS for about 8-10 months now and it is the lens I keep on my Digital Rebel most of the time. For me it is a do-it-all lens, although I wish it was a little wider - an 18-135 would be sweet :). I've had no problems with AF. I think the IS is a huge factor when shooting indoors at slow shutter speeds.

[webrx]

The 28-135 is my favorite walk around on the 10D.

 

I love my 100-400 when I can use a tripod, and it is ok for short trips handheld, but if you are going to spend a few hours walking around the 28-135 is great.

 

Mine is a little slow to focus in low light, but then again, so are my other non-prime, non-L lenses. From what my friends tell me, the 20d, 1dmkII and 1dsmkII bodies will help a bit with this - but these also cost a few bucks.

 

YMMV - Dave

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I upgraded from the 28-105 to the 28-135 and didn't perceive any difference in focus acquisition, but I didn't do any back-to-back testing of AF performance; I simply started using the 28-135 and didn't think its AF responsiveness felt different to what I'd been accustomed to. <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">My 28-135 is better than my 28-105</a> but perhaps the difference between my two and your two is sample variation. Since your choice is between the two specific samples you tested, then your result is more important to you than mine, and I'm glad you're happy with either.</p>

 

<p>To me, if I were in your situation, it would be a pretty easy call. More range and IS, with the same optical quality, for the same money. I wish I'd been able to do my upgrade for free :-)</p>

[taner]

Canon's EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 and 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM lenses are <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm">apparently (says Pupy Face)</a> unusual with their fast autofocus speeds (for consumer zooms I take it).

<p>

I have not compared the 28-105 (which I used for a year before I went all primes) with the 28-135 (which I have used only briefly), but I have compared it carefully to the EF 100mm f/2 USM prime lens (which is what I use now) on Rebel G and Elan 7 bodies; at 100-105mm the 28-105 zoom is almost as fast as the 100 prime!

<p>

It really is unfortunate that Canon does not have a constant f/2.8 28-80 (or 28-105) consumer zoom that focuses as fast as the 28-105mm 3.4-4.5 lens. There would be no 'fancy' optical glass in such a zoom obviously. As for the two consumer lenses you are comparing; f/4.5, or even worse, f/5.6 with the IS lens are just not acceptable around 100-135mm... Trying bluring the background at 100mm and at f/5.6...<div></div>

[andrew robertson]

My only gripe about the 28-135 IS is that it's actually more like 28-110. There's no way it

goes to 135mm, as my old 70-200 f/4L, 100-300 f/5.6L, and 135 f/2.8 SF (with the

zooms set at 135 of course) are all considerably longer at infinity.

 

Other than that, it's a great little lens.

[bruce johnson]

I'll second your observation Andrew. I was very suprised when testing lenses that the 135 setting was between 100 and 135, I'd estimate about 110mm when compared to the 70-200/4L, 100-300/5.6L and 100/2.8 macro. Doesn't bother me much, for a few years this was definately my most used lens, but it doesn't find a spot in my bag much anymore - too many lenses to choose from.

[jimstrutz]

One reason people complain that the 28-135 doesn't actually go to 135mm is because they usually test it on a target that isn't far enough away. I know that's what I did at first. Both of these lenses suffer from focal length reduction when focussed to less than infinity, but the 28-135 is much worse in that regard, and that makes it look like it doesn't get close to 135mm. The other reason, is because it probablly isn't really 135mm at the long end. Most zoom lenses are over rated focal length wise. (Rounded up on the long end, and rounded down on the short end.) Perhaps the 28-105 is more accurately rated, but I don't think this is a major factor when compared at infinity.

 

When I first upgraded from the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 to the 28-135, I was immediately aware of the degradation in fucus speed and increase in hunting. This was on several consumer camera bodies; Elan, Elan II, 10s. But when I bought the DRebel, all focussing problems went away. I suspect improved AF on some of the newer cameras compensates for the 28-135's performance loss.

[andrew robertson]

Jim, I said 'at infinity' and I meant it. Closer than that it's even worse (probably just shy of

100)!

[jimstrutz]

I don't mean to stir your pot Andrew, but set at infinity, and tested against two other 100-105mm lenses (one prime, one zoom), I would rate the Canon 28-135 at around 120-125mm at the long end. Shorter than advertised, but within 10%.