Compare 28-135 IS USM to "L" Lens (Rant)

[delwyn_ching]

I read some posts on this forum, Fred Miranda's forum, dpreview and

there are lots of folks out there that complain about the 28-135 IS

USM f/3.5-5.6 and it can't compare to and "L" lens. Thw 28-135 is

nothing more than a consumer lens, maybe a low-end prosumer lens but

definitely not in the same class with a low-end "L" lens. But why

do people give it a low rating and say it can't compare to or is not

a "L" lens? Manybe it's because they want a "L" lens and can't

afford it so they're trying to kid themselves? I don't know but just

had to get that off my chest.

[koot_marais1]

I have a 28-135 lens and maybe I have a particularly good example, but I have to say that the quality of photos from this lens compare well with my four L lenses (17-40mm, 70-200mm f4, 300mm f4 and 500mm f4). I have done indepth tests and specifically around f8 and f11, this lens is as sharp as anything in my bag - it is maybe not sturdy, but for the right situation, i.e. touring, it is wonderful.

[josh1]

There are some other things like the way the 28-135 renders out-of-focus areas...never liked the looks when I had that lens. I know a lot of people don't care bokeh but I greatly prefer the buttery smooth backgrounds that my 24-70L gives me that make the subject of the photograph really pop out.

[carl_weller]

Tests at f8 to f11 will generally show very little difference between a good consumer lense

and an L lense.

 

Just about all of the vignetting and distortion problems you get with anything but the best

lenses at larger apertures like f2.8 are not really obvious at f11.

 

You should compare the 28-135 at f4 [that is stopped down 1/3 of a stop just to be nice]

against a constant apeture L zoom wide open or at f4. The difference will normally be

huge.

 

That extra lense speed while maintaining top optical quality is what makes the L series

worth its weight in gold.

 

regards,

[ulrich_brandl]

The 28-135 is a very useful lens. It has almost a 1:5 zoom ratio and is relatively compact and lightweight and has IS. This combination of features is not compatible with "L" quality.

 

I have compared it with the 17-40L at 28mm@f5.6 - there is a visible difference in center and corner sharpness on 100% crops (unfortunately I have already deleted this boring stuff). Real world photos with the 28-135, however, are very good, nothing to complain.

I dont use it for portraits and other subjects where background blur and bokeh is an issue.

 

I would say this lens has a large window of usefulness. If you find its unique combination of features useful for your kind of photography there is no better alternative at the moment.

 

Ulrich

[guido_gazzino]

I think a valid alternative may be sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX. This lens doesn't have IS feature, but it is faster than 28-135 lens. The price is lower and the optical quality is really better. Why don't Canon make a valid reply to his third party competitors?

[jim_larson1]

The rant is valid.

 

What is worse is that the 17-85/IS has the same issues, but costs within a few dollars of a 17-40/4L.

 

I have actually been considering a 28-135/IS, but I am fearful that I will suffer the same fate of not beeing satisfied, considering that I also shoot a 17-40/4L and 70-200/4L. Thinking I may get a 85/1.8 (different use, I know) instead.

[dermot_conlan4]

Check out www.danheller.com according to Dan a huge ammount of the work

there was produced using this lens. Do you want to photograph test charts

and read reviews till it drives you nuts or go out and make images.

[rick_helmke]

I didn't know there was such a thing as a low end L lens but I have been impressed with the ones I have used. That said, the 28-135 is my most used lens by a wide margin. It's a bit slow but I rarely am forced to use a faster lens. Good sharpness and contrast, about the max range for a zoom I am comfortable with and IS can make up for the slow lens speed. It also lets me shoot at times when a 2.8 or 2 lens would still render a low shutter speed. The backgrounds don't drop out as much as I would like but f/5.6 at 135mm does okay. Bottom line is this lens is useful to me in many situations and allows me to concentrate on the photo and not mess with the camera. If Monte Zucker likes it then it can't be all bad.

 

Rick H.

[squareframe]

I have never noticed any differences between my 28-135mm f3.5IS and my passel of 'L' lenses. but then, I have always been more interested in what the image speaks of, and far less-interested in how loud.

 

I love fast-lenses of good glass. however, the 28-135mm provides reasonable performance for what it was designed to do. a good, journeyman, travel-lens, for hand-held applications with good-lighting. work within it's limits and enjoy it's pricing and results.

 

sorry to say, I rarely, if ever, see images here that would benefit from more expensive optics. 'imagination' is difficult to warranty.

[larry_underwood]

Daniel, I agree with you 100%. I have a collection of six "L" lenses myself, but if I go for a walk with only one lens and no tripod, the 28-135mm lens is usually the one that ends up on my camrea.

[phyrpowr]

If mine breaks or gets lost or stolen on vacation, I'll replace it at the first camera store I come to, full retail price if I have to.

If it happens to anything else, I'll make do.

 

I thought I was going to replace it with a Sigma 24-70, fine quality lens, until I actually printed at 11x17 and no one could tell the difference

 

I'll get my Canon 24-70 L when the state of NC gives raises, which the governor assures us will be delivered by the flying pigs

[delwyn_ching]

Didn't mean to ruffle anyone's feathers but there's just too many people who gives this fine lens (28-135) negative ratings on other forum sites and then complain that it's not a "L" lens or give that as a reason for the low ratings. Thanks people I know on this site people give it high marks, including me.

[les]

I would not give it an "excellent" rating - it is a very good lens, but "excellent" is reserved for other glass.

 

Folks on dpreview must be kidding themselves. It is not an "L" lense, but it would be hard to find a better and more versatile lens (with IS !) at the price. As a value for money it probably tops the list: in absolute terms there are many better lenses.

 

At any case I took a lot of good pics with 28-135, was happy with it, gave it to my sister who started her photography adventure couple of months ago. The 24-70 (replacement for 28-135) is better optically (good), 4mm shorter (very good), goes only to 70mm (I have to carry another, longer lens - not so good), does not have IS (hmm...).

 

In short: there are a lot of things that the 24-70 does better, at the expense of some things which the 28-135 did better...

 

They are just very different lenses.

 

Now, can we have a thread on comparison between Toyota Landcruiser and Chevy Corvette ? Or some such ? ;) ;) ;)

[larry_underwood]

"there's just too many people who gives this fine lens (28-135) negative ratings on other forum sites and then complain that it's not a "L" lens or give that as a reason for the low ratings."

 

See? Quit going to other forum sites. This thing is real simple. The 28-135mm is not a "L" lens. It doesn't cost like a "L" lens, and it doesn't weigh like a "L" lens. I've never taken a photo with it and thought "I should have used a 'L' lens", but I have taken photos (handheld) with a 24-70mm and thought "I should have used IS".

[delwyn_ching]

That's the point I'm trying to make. But I can't help going to these other forums because it starts out as someone making a comparison then it goes to all out war of words and name calling, etc. So it get hilarious after several bouts.

 

Thanks everyone for undestanding what I was ranting about and hopefully this was the last post in this thread-now it's time to move on.

[jim_larson1]

That's ok. . .I have seen people on *this* forum claim the 18-55 is just as good as the 17-40/4L.

 

They actually posted graphs showing the point. "See.. . in the center at F8, the lenses are virtually the same! Why pay more? You guys with fancy 17-40/4L's are fools!".

[sc21]

I've been frustrated with the same choices - or lack thereof. As in wanting something between the 28-135 and L lenses.

 

I have the 28-105, and it's old and battered and quite soft, so I read reviews of the 28-135 at numerous sites and found the same split - people who loved it as a walk-around lens, and others who had trouble with the IS and softness.

 

I agree with all the above - at f/8 most lenses give very similar sharpness. Pop Photo recently did a test in which they found that Canon's mid-level consumer lenses equal L lenses in sharpness when stopped down, and that the real power of L lenses lies in their fast apertures (i.e. lots of glass), ability to focus up close, and rugged, weather-resistant build.