28-135 F4.5/5.6 IS for user moving from FD to EOS

[chris.platten]

This question needs some background. I am moving from Canon FD to EOS

(Finally). I shoot a lot of slides (Kodachrome) and I always have a

scanning backlog. This question relates to an EF lens (hence this

forum) .

 

 

Most (but not all) of my pictures are taken while mountaineering,

which means landscapes with a scattering plants and critters when the

opportunity presents. A key issue is that everything has to be carried

a long way over difficult terrain. Weight and bulk are important.

My current standard kit is T90, 24 F2.8 SSC, 50 F1.4 SSC, 80-200 F4

FDn (NOT the L version). I use the 50 most followed by the 80-200 then

the 24.

 

 

I have settled on the EOS350D body (for weight and to some extent

price since I have to purchase lenses as well as a body). To replace

the 24 and 50 I will go for the 17-40 F4L. I know that with the crop

factor (gives 27-64). I will not get 24, but if I need wider I will

just have to buy a cheap film body (some, but a lot less scanning)

 

 

The hardest decision is how to replace the 80-200 F4. The obvious

choice is the 70-200 F4L, but with the crop factor this is 112-320. I

tend to use the 80-100 or fully maxed at 200. Losing the lower range

(for me) is not offset by the extra reach at 300. This makes the

70-200 F4L less attractive. There was a 50-200F4L (80-320 giving the

best of both worlds), but this is discontinued. With FD I was happy to

buy used (well I had no choice really) but in this case I would rather

have new and a warrantee.

 

 

This brings me to the 28-135 IS (and at long last the point of my

question). At 45-216 it matches well with the 27-64 range from my wide

angle choice and the focal lengths that are important to me. It has

IS, which given my disinclination to carry a tripod for 20 miles and

4000 feet of ascent seems to be a good thing. It is clearly not going

to give the same quality as the L lens.

 

 

My question is, how will a tiff generated from RAW out of the EOS350D

with the 28-135 IS compare to a TIFF from a slide taken with ISO100

slide film using the 80-200 F4 FDn which has been scanned on an EPSON

3200. In both cases assume that the image is the best possible with

the equipment specified. In effect the consumer lens may capture less

detail, but there is no subsequent loss in scanning. If the result at

the TIFF stage is very close then IS will probably swing it in favour

of the consumer lens for me.

 

 

If someone has followed this upgrade path, was the 28-135 good enough

(as per my criteria above) or was it a disappointment.

[jean_jacques_lemaire]

<I>I will not get 24, but if I need wider I will just have to buy a cheap film body (some, but a lot less scanning)</I><BR>

or a Canon 10-22? or a Tokina 12-24? a cheap film body is certainly bigger and heavier

[jnicholson]

Hi Chris, sorry I can't answer your direct question since I don't scan slides nor own a 3200. But, I do own the 28-135 IS. It is a very capable lens and I've had some amazingly sharp pictures from it. I must say though that it has also caused me to pull my hair out more than any other lens I own. I think it's due to a slower operation, both focus and IS, than the 70-200 which I use a lot.

 

My reason for leaving a comment is to point out that I'm not sure the 28-135 will do well in the conditions you mention. It is a bit notorious for getting particles, dirt, hair and other crap inside the lens. It will take a lot of TLC in the conditions you describe to keep this lens in top condition.

[andrew_ito]

Personally, I'd recommend the 10-22 EF-S instead of the 17-40L and pick up a Tamron

28-75 f2.8 XR Di and the 70-200 f4L. I've owned the 10-22, 17-40L, Tamron 28-75, 70

-200 f4, f2.8 and f2.8 IS. I often take my camera equipment backpacking and would

recommend this kit not only for sharpness, but for price/performance ratio and weight

considerations. With this kit, the only focal range you're limited on is between 22mm and

28mm.

 

I'd also consider getting the Canon 1.4x teleconverter for use with the 70-200 and the

small, cheap and sharp Canon 50mm f1.8.

 

I considered the 28-135 IS as a walkaround lens as well, but decided to stick with the

Tamron. Just make sure you can test multiple copies of the lens since the quality control

varies between different copies of this lens. The same goes for the 10-22. I had two and

had to send one back to get some elements replaced. Now it's sharp and I have 2 copies

of this lens!

[rick_helmke]

I didn't follow this exact path but one similar. In the summer of '03 I aquired enough cash and prices came to a reasonable level for me to go digital. After a ton of research and much liqour consumed during discussions late into the night (the good old days) I decided the 10D was the one for me. Lenses were a Tokina 19-35, the 28-135 IS and a 70-300 zoom. I sold off three Nikon bodies,manual and auto and a collection of very good but well used Nikkors. I aded a 420EX and a Big Ed battery grip. It's been the perfect set up and does whatever I ask of it. I nearly added a 350D to the bag but decided the 20D was more suited to my needs. Still the 350D is an impressive package with most of the good camera features built in. It is small and light and I think uses different batteries than the 10D and 20D.

 

As for the 28-135 IS, it is by far my most used lens. The wide zooms come next and a good telephoto round it out. The 28-135 covers about 85% of my needs. It is quite sharp and shows good color and contrast, quick AF, the zoom is smooth. It isn't an L lens but it allmost is. As for IS well, it's an incredible feature and I love it but it has an on-off switch for a reason.

 

One suggestion is to quit comparing lens lengths to their 35mm counterpart. Simply learn which lenses work for you in this format. You know you will need something wider like a 17 or 19 at the wide end so act accordingly. 12-40L, 28-135 USM IS and a 70-200 L will do most of the work. Don't forget an extra battery or two and enough cards to get you through the event. CF cards weigh much less than a laptop or other digital accessory.

 

Rick H.

[andrew robertson]

I don't think anybody who's actually used the 28-135 IS (and has a good example of it)

really can complain too much about it. It's not too big, it has IS, it's better than the other

non-L wide to tele Canon zooms, and it's reasonably fast at the wide end. I really like mine

a lot. It's sharp enough wide open, and much sharper just 2/3 of a stop down. The IS really

makes the lens, though.

[JosvanEekelen]

I went a similar route, from A1, AE1, FD 28/2.8, FD 50/1.8, FD 85/1.8 and FD 135/2.8 first to 35 mm EOS and last year to a 10D. I started off with the 28-135 IS and added a few more lenses later (EF 35/2.0, EF 85/1.8, EF 100-400 IS). I shot Kodachrome untill 2002 after that Provia F became the film of my choice. I mostly judge my slides on a lightbox or projected on a screen.

 

Compared to the abovementioned lenses the 28-135 is quite good, in fact I think that the quality of my pictures is more influenced by other circumstances like lighting conditions etc. than by the quality of the lens. Personally I would immediately replace this lens if it gets stolen or breaks. It is large and heavy but smaller than the primes it replaces. IMO it is a very good travel lens.

[praveen murthy]

You want to know whether an ancient non-L zoom lens, scanned on a flatbed scanner, can possibly compete with a decent zoom on a digital body? I think it's no contest; even the least regarded Canon zoom like a 35-80 would win.

[ted_kaufman]

I made the move from F1's and breechlock FD lenses to digital a few years ago. I decided to get the 28-135mm IS zoom to give me something to use while I worked out the kinks of moving to digital.

 

I also have a Microtek i900 scanner that I use to convert transparencies of various formats to digital so I can present them to clients on my laptop.

 

First of all, I can tell you that no 35mm slide, no matter what lens or condition you shot it in, will compare to any sharp digital image from the 10D and any digital lens I've used on my 10D or 20Ds. Too much is lost in the transfer from 35mm slide to digital. 4x5 film to digital is another story, but that's not the issue here.

 

As for the comparison of the 28-135mm IS to other Canon L lenses, it fares very well compared to any of the L lenses I own, which includes the 17-40L and 70-200L F2.8 IS. The L lenses are built better, no doubt, and function more smoothly, but in terms of image making ability, I am often amazed at how good the 28-135 zoom is. I do not hesitate to use it for any assignment. I will say that I don't use it wide open, but I am a pro and shoot on a very solid tripod whenever there is even the slightest concern about camera movement.

 

For your needs, the 28-135 IS is a no brainer. The combination of relative light weight, macro capability and IS, as well as its focal length range, makes it the ideal single lens for your uses. Are the L lenses better? Of course they are, but the differences are not that dramatic. My one real caveat is the L lenses are better constructed and much better sealed against dust and moisture. But if you aren't going to use it in the harshest of conditions, I don't see the likelihood of problems. Image quality wise, you will be taking a very large step forward going from 35mm flatbed scans to the 10D with 28-135 IS.

[phyrpowr]

Another vote for the 28-135 IS from a casual backpacker and outdoor traveller. Only crap I ever got in mine over seven years was a stray bit of cigarette tobacco, from Death Valley to the Southern Appalachians to the Sierra Bristlecones to the Oregon coast, 5 degrees farenheit to 110

 

With reasonable protection this lens can hold up fine, and when you top a summit, tired, winded, shaky, and see a great shot that won't wait for your tripod to be set up....well, payoff right there

[chris.platten]

Thanks for all the answers. The 28-135 gives me the field of view I am interested in and IS is a bonus. Combined with the 17-40, it gives me a two lens hiking solution. If I went for the 70-200 I would need something in the middle to fill the gap. That something would be very light (50 1.8), but I would still have to manage three lenses.

 

I accept that the 28-135 is not as robust as the 70-200, but I will need to protect the new body anyway. My days of just drying out a wet camera (my old AE1 not the T90) and have it working again are gone!

 

The 28-135 and 17-40 have very similar dimensions. Rather than a large camera bag, I can use just a camera case and a lens case. Whichever lens is mounted, the spare will fit in the lens case. On an extended backpack this is very important.

 

Of course this does not mean I will never have the 70-200, but 17-40 & 28-135 is a very good starting point.

 

One final note:

My current T90, 24, 50, 80-200 weighs 2.2Kg

and the replacement 350D, 17-40, 28-135 weighs 1.6Kg

Given that two spare batts+CF cards roughly balance out the weight of 12 rolls of film I have a weight reduction of 0.6Kg in addition to all the other benefits

[kai_griffin]

While I use mine on a digital, and can't comment from personal experience how a TIFF from a slide would stack up, I have two relatives who use this lens who both shoot exclusively film, and their results are superb. The 28-135mm is a great all-purpose consumer lens; I'd put it at the upper end of the consumer line.

[chris.platten]

Just as I thought I was settled with the 17-40 and 28-135, along comes the 24-105F4L. This is a very tempting proposition. Yes it is more expensive, but it covers the range I use for 80% of my shooting. I suspect I succumb to temptation. If I want moderate wide, I can use the kit lens, If I want wider, a film body with this lens will give me 24mm.