moving from 55-250 to 28-135

[prasad_apte]

<p>Hi guys<br />right now I have 55-250 as my only tele lens.<br />I am geting really good deal on 28-135. (I think it is 28-135 is usm, by the way is there any other 28-135 from canon than this?) which will act like aprox. 45-215 mm on my 400D which is crop body. obviously I would lose some mm tele capacity but I am going to get 100-400 sooner or later. and I cancelled the plan to shift on full frame. So I think 28-135 and 100-400 will work really good as the two complementary lenses. but....<br />my real question is<br />will the 28-135 defenetly perform lot better than my 55-250? can I go for 28-135 because of the good offer and should sell out 55-250?<br />I think 55-250 is good lens but not excellent ! (I THINK SO)<br />prasad</p>

[bueh]

<p>The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM lens is a bit better than the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS. But how much is a lot? Both are rather slow and while the first one's image quality is superior to the later, you may or may not notice this in real life photography.</p>

[rainer_t]

<p>-- "which will act like aprox. 45-215 mm"<br>

Just dont forget, that your 55-250 does act like a 88-400mm if you compare them in 35mm equivalent focal length.</p>

<p>I would think that you cannot really compare the two lenses, since they cover a range that is already too different. But if you nearly never use the long end of your 55-250, and if you always wish for a bit more on the wide end, the 28-135 is a good lens. ... If you want a tele lens, I would either keep the 55-250, or swap it for a 70-300, but not for a 28-135 ... but this still depends on what other lenses you have.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Rainer's answer is pretty close to what I would recommend too. A replacement for the 55-250 would be something more like the 70-300 IS or one of the 70-200 L lenses.<br /> If you have a kit lens 18-55mm IS, then the 28-135 is going to cover a lot of what your existing lenses do, but will deprive you of a real wide angle and a long telephoto. 28mm is more like a normal lens (50mm 35mm-equivalent) and the 135mm end is significantly shorter than the 250mm or longer lenses.<br /> Either that or get your 100-400mm now, and save the money from the 28-135mm.</p>

<p>A good deal on something you don't need, is not really a good deal.</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>What JDM said. Besides, I'm not sure the 28-135 is any better than the 55-250. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the latter is the clear winner in a shoot-out.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>I am surpriced that the 28-135 IS should be a better lens than the EFs 55-250 IS ! The latter lens is a new design for APS-C format that should give more quality to the new 12 Mpix sensor ( Canon 450D at the time).<br>

28-135 IS is a quite old lens by now and was made before Canon lauched its first DSLR ( D30 with 3,1 Mpix).<br>

The german site Photozone have tested both lenses and the 55-250 was clarely superior at 55 and 135mm, and has much less cromatic aberations.<br>

I dont own these lenses so I cant tell for sure, but everything I have read about this two lenses so far are pointing to the opposite direction.</p>

[wes_baker1]

<p>I use the 28-135 on a 40D for things I know I can't get really close to, but still need some magnification. For example, in the pits at a car race. In those situation, you need a decent zoom range, but you never know when you might have to get the whole car too. 55 wouldn't be wide enough. The IS system in the 28-135 is not the newest, but it still works pretty well.<br>

I use the 17-55 as my "walking around lens" most of the time, but the 28-135 definitely has its moments.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I owned the 28-135 and own the 55-250 IS. In most respects the 55-250 IS is superior. It is a sharper lens (definitely in the center), the IS is good for at least three stops, and possibly four. The contrast is about the same on both lenses as is the rendering of colour. the 55-250 IS is pretty good wide open and at its peak stopped down about half a stop. The 28-135 is really an f8 lens, and I was never keen on using it wide open.<br>

The IQ of the 28-135 may be a bit more even across the frame but is is less sharp in the center. The IS is the mark 1 version, good for only about two stops and needs to be switched off for panning and tripod use.<br>

The build quality of the 28-135 is mostly better with ring USM, metal mount, rear focus and non rotating front element. I don't reall care for the duo cam design, however, and the inner tubes if are more wobbly than the 55-250.</p>

[robert_johnstone]

<p>why not spend big :) and go both a 24-105L & 100-400L covers a decent range.</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>Thanks a lot guys! actually I was not aware at all with the quality of 28-135mm. I just place the question because I was getting really very good offer! But I think they (canon) charging a lot for 28-135 than 55-250 for the good build quality. (am I right?) So I am on this conclusion that I don't have to regreat about getting the 55-250 and should wait and go for 100-400 afterward! right?<br>

thank u very much again!<br>

But....<br>

I was realy daring to ask this question. The EF_S lens's given focal lenth is also according to what it will act like with 35mm camera? My presumption was actually - EF-S lens's focal lenth is according to crop body because they are specially made for crop body! can anyone make it clear for me?<br>

thanks in advance<br>

prasad</p>

 

[rainer_t]

<p>The focal length of a lens is an attribut independant from any camera.</p>

<p>- A lens has 17mm ... regardless on which camera it is mounted or if there is a camera at all.<br /> - The image circle produced by a lens may be different from the image circle of another lens ... two lenses may have 17mm focal length ... one of them (the one designed for crop cameras) may produce an image circle with a diameter of only slightly above 30mm ... whereas the other (the one designed for 135-film) might produce an image circle of 50mm ... anyhow ... placed on a crop camera, both lenses will put the same picture on the sensor ... whereas placed on a fullframe camera you'll see dark corners with one of the lenses.<br /> - So, weather a 17mm lens will be really wide, depends on the lens (the image circle it can produce) and on the camera you put it on.</p>

<p>So, to your question ... yes ... if you want to express the field of view that you have and name the focal length you would need on a 135-film camera (or a fullframe digital camera) to produce this field of view, you need to multiply by the crop factor of the camera you use the lens on ... regardless if you use an EFS lens or not.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>Well prasad, the focal length written on the lenses are absolut values and are not adopted to anything including what sensor size it is made for.</p>

<p>So the EFs 55-250 IS will give you the same angular field of view (or framing) on a APS-C sensor camera like Canon 400D, as a 88-400mm lens would give you on a full frame camera like Canon 5D.<br>

An other example is that both lenses ( EFs 55-250 and EF 100-400) set at 200 mm will give the same framing on a Canon 400D.</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>One more thing I forgot to tell you. Dont hesitate to ask questions however basic or simple the may be. The only silly questions are they which never been asked. We are here to help anyone who honestly want to increase his knowledge and understanding.</p>

[andreas_kusumahadi]

<p>Fortunately I'm also pondering to trade my EFS-55-250 for EF-28-135 for two reasons: (1) Versatility for walkaround, and (2) I don't use the long end two often.<br>

<br /> The 55-250IS is a sharp lens, you can see in the review if you don't have one. It's very lightweight, pretty silent, accurate, and fast autofocus. The downsides are poor built quality (plastic mount) and ugly design, to me. I once got a hood for the lens, but it only makes it even uglier look.<br>

<br /> The color is a bit pale for my liking and lack of contrast compared to expensive lenses. Other than that, it's very sharp wide open and useful lens which is often underrated. I've seen 28-135 images, and I would bet 55-250 easily beats it in term of sharpness.<br>

<br /> However, I would consider the focal range and productivity above the sharpness alone.</p>