Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

[teresa_santosus]

<p>I am still searching for a good zoom lens (for outdoor portraits of the kids, etc). I was looking into the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, but when I called the camera store to ask if they carried it and if I could come in and test it out (Ritz camera used to let me do this all the time). He said that it would not be a good choice for my Rebel XT. Does anyone know if this is true and why? I was looking into the Tamron 28-75mm and the Sigma 28-70 but then started to see some affordable canon lenses as well. Another lens I was looking into was the canon 28-105 but the reviews for the 28-135 were slightly better.<br>

Any suggestions. I know I have posted similar questions in the past, but now with the canon thrown into the mix, I was wondering what you guys thought. I also wanted to know if it would be worth it to buy the 28-135 for the Rebel (I did see if for a good price, but do not want to purchase if I can not get the full function quality from it).<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[c jensen]

<p>The only reason I can think they may have told you this is due to the 1.6 crop factor of the Rebel, making this lens not very wide at the 28 end. I owned this lens a while back and was quite satisfied with the image quality in relation to the price of the lens. (I'd say more satisfied than the reviews that I read.) One thing you'll see in the reviews, and which I experienced, is the wobbliness of the barrel.</p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>I forgot to add, I was also considering the Canon 55-250, but haven't done enough research on it yet. I am actually doing that now. My concern is photos at dusk (will this one be quick enough or will it hunt).</p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>Chris - Thank you for your reply. I am also not too concerned as I take mostly portraits of my children, so I really would not need to go wide very often (but it is nice to have). I just didn't want to purchase it if it would not work well with my camera :D</p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>I use the 28-135IS with the original digital rebel. I think its a good general lens, but it just doesnt go wide enough on a crop body.I pair mine with a 10-22 for wide angle shots.<br>

Things i like:<br>

Ring-usm: fast silent focusing. It can do full-time-manual focusing too, but i dont use that. Hard to see on my tiny viewfinder screen.<br>

Image stabilization: although its an older version, its handy.<br>

Its got a decent range, i just wish it was wider.</p>

<p>The 55-250 is even longer, between the two, i'd reccomend the 28-135.<br>

but you should consider something that starts at 18mm, like the 18-200, 17-85(this one might be poor quality? dunno), etc.</p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>Adam - Thanks. I did look into the 18 - 200 but the reviews weren't as good as the 28-135. I will do more digging though. Thanks again. Would you say the 28-135 would be good for close up shots (portraits). </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>The 28 - 135 acts more like a 45mm at the wide end ... not very wide. The 18-55 IS is not bad and will cover the wide end, or go for a 10-20mm and 28-135. </p>

<p>Those are all somewhat slow lenses though.</p>

[andy_szeto]

<p>This lens is quite good actually. It is a ring type USM with full time manual focus. It's sharp and good range for portrait (on 1.6x crop cameras). Except it doesn't give you the same creamy out of focus background as those expensive and heavy fast lens. Also if the kid is very active, it may not be "fast" enough. But overall it is a good lens. Hope this helps.</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I use a 28-135IS on my Rebel XT with no problems at all. It's a normal-to-tele lens that's quite sharp (though a bit distorted on the short end) and has effective image stabilization. I also have a Tokina 12-24 for wide-angle coverage. The two lenses are all I need for a reasonably light travel kit.</p>

<p>The guy at the store may have meant to say that it's not a complete "one-lens solution" for a 1.6 crop camera. And he's correct about that, although it may be entirely fine if you use it only for portraits of your kids.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>The Tamron and Sigma will give you better image quality and both are F2.8 which is preferable. This will give you better low light performance and nicer depth of field control/ bokeh (background blur).</p>

<p>The Canons you list are significantly slower at F5.6 on the long end. Basically, those canons are closer to consumer grade lenses and the Tamron and Sigma are more Pro-sumer grade.</p>

<p> </p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>I replied before but it didn't come up - not sure why.<br>

Bob - Thanks for your input. Before reading about the canon, I was leaning more towards the tamron. I just was looking for more of a "range" in zoom, but if getting the canon will mean I sacrifice picture quality, I will consider the Tamron again. </p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Having bought two of these in the last month (I didn't plan it that way, but the tender mercies of the USPS made the first shipment a little, well, unusable), I have to say that it is a very fine lens. I got it for my daughter, who earlier had the 28-90mm, and she is enormously enthusiastic about it. She shoots a xxD camera, but doesn't miss the wide end, and likes the extra reach on the top a lot.</p>

<p>Almost all zooms have some barrel distortion, etc. Check the Photozone reviews on APS-C cameras and you'll see that that Canon EF compares at least evenly with the Sigmas and Tamrons in overall dimensions as I read the reviews.</p>

<p>I can't see where the Canon lens will give you "lower image quality" than the others, at all.<br>

I own a Sigma and a Tamron, both in their highest build grade, and I also can't see that they is any more "professional" than Canon's standard grade. Definitely better than the 18-55mm non-IS, sure, but the 28-135mm IS (please note, IS) is not a "kit lens" in that sense. It is, in more ways than one, the equivalent of the EF-S 17-85mm IS lens on the APS-C cameras.</p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>JDM - So you are recommending the canon 28-135? Sorry - I wasn't exactly sure when you said you had both of the lenses, which ones you were talking about :D. I am sure whichever lens I choose I will be completely happy w/ b/c they are a definite step up from what I am used to shooting with :D Just wanted to do a lot of research since after this purchase it will probably be awhile before I get another one.</p>

[chrisjb]

<p>G`day Teresa, just my $.02, If this is mainly for your outside pics and you want distance for candid shots then the 28 135 is quite capable in good light. in low light and indoors it may need a flash assistance as the IS don`t help with moving subjects. The f2.8 lenses give you 2 extra stops which can be used for either faster shutter speed to stop movement or wider aperture to seperate background but with a shorter focal length the compromise, and of course better in low light tho you have higher ISO options. The problen is yours to solve on priority :)</p>

<p>My kids are grown up but I found that quite often the things they got up to happened quickly and never had time for fiddlin with a camera. I just grabbed an old D30 went outside in AV and took 2 pics. a moving flower in the breeze (not a kid, I kow that) but hand held as normal, both at 70mm wide open. The 24 70f2.8 Sigma and ef28 135 IS canon which is f5 @ 70mm. The exif should be there to show difference in shutter speed. I don`t have the Tamron 28 75 but beleive it is smaller and lighter. Its 10am here and sunny..If you decide on the ef28 135 be sure to get a hood as it does not come with one...HTH</p><div></div>

[chrisjb]

<p>Oh yeah, these 2 pics are rushed shots and have absolutely no changes other than resizing, colour and contrast etc are jpeg straight out of the camera to see any difference YMMV :)</p><div></div>

[Funtak]

<p>I would try to purchase used 24-105 L f4 lens instead...</p>

[teresa_santosus]

<p>Thank you for all the replies. I am trying to weigh my priorities. Although I like the range of the canon, I like the quick shutter of the tamron and also the low light aspect. I guess I just have to weigh the pro's and con's and what I would like more in a lens right now :D</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Teresa, exactly. I wasn't so much pushing the 28-135, as simply saying don't take it out of your options.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents. It all depends on how many lens you plan to buy down the road. If you think you will be getting a 70-200 not to far down the road and don't plan to own too many lens then a Tamron 28-75 may be a better choice. If not, EF28-135 is a fine lens. I have a Tamron 28-75/2.8, EF28-135 and EF70-200 plus some primes and other zoom. EF28-135 is still my favroite lens for Disney parks.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>Nobody has metioned the Canon EF-s 18-55 IS. I have a lot of more expensive gear using a full frame 5D, however, I also have a Rebel XTi. I bought an 18-55 to put on the Rebel and leave in my car. It cost 150 dollars. It makes very nice, sharp colorful images and gives a moderate wide angle capability. Later you could pair it with the 55-250. It is the only EF-s lens I own. I also have 28-105 for when I want to go light with my larger body. The weight of the Rebel and 18-55 is under three pounds which I like after years of lugging heavy stuff around. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>By the way I used to shoot kids professionally and if you get more than two of the them together wider angle is more desirable than 28 mm on a crop body. 18mm on a crop gives roughly the same view as 28 mm on full frame which I have always used a lot for small groups, pictures of houses, inside houses like four people on a couch, etc. I carry an expensive wide angle zoom to normal lens on my 5d a lot of the time. </p>

[axel-cordes]

<p>I'm not sure if mentioned, but I would recommend 'Hands on'. You should try them Sigma Canon etc. My Canon gear is much better for manual focus than the Sigma.<br>

Draw back on the lens mentioned: After a while it becomes wobbly.<br>

The front elements are really shakeable. The zoom bumps down when heading down, bumps back when heading to the sky. Had it at Canon service, worked for a half year and now is again.<br>

BUT its a good lens for the price I think.</p>

 

[Alex]

<p>I own the Canon 28 135 IS an altough I don't use it much now since I got some primes covering that distance I would no sell it since I found it to be a pretty decent lens. I took all kinds of great pictures with it. For what you mentioned (outdoor pictures of your kids) will do just fine. It's not the best for interiors due to not being a fast lens unless you have enough light of course.<br>

I any case most of the lenses that you mention should please you I (call me snob) like to shoot with Canon glass. Spend as much as you can confortably afford on your lens since chances are you'll change the body before you change glass that is if you got the right lens to beging with.<br>

Regards,<br>

Alex</p><div></div>

[Alex]

<p>And here is an action shot with it.</p><div></div>

[Alex]

<p>And even in low light (depending on how your camera handles noise) you can crank up the ISO and handhold the camera benefiting from the IS and get a decent shot. I was in the first row for this shot.</p><div></div>