Canon 28-135 or 55-250 IS lens

[gregory_mclemor]

<p>Hello<br>

My name is Greg and I am hoping to buy the Canon 50d. I have heard that the Canon 28-135 IS lens does not have good lens quality.<br>

I was wondering if I should get the Canon 50-250 IS lens instead while I save up for the 70-200 L lens?<br>

Thanks</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>The 28-135 IS is a grossly underrated lens. It has its weaknesses for sure, like so-so build quality (although mine has done quite well for 10 years!) and edge softness at certain focal lengths. This last isn't nearly as much of an issue with crop bodies like the 50D since crop bodies utilize the "sweet spot" of a lens. I think the 28-135 IS can produce absolutely stunning pictures as long as you use the proper basic techniques. It's also a nice focal range for a "standard" lens, even though the 28mm isn't very wide on the 50D. Save up for the 70-200L no matter what, but if you were to get the 28-135 IS, rest assured that you can make excellent pictures with it. Sure, the 24-105 would be nicer but that would require an additional $800 or so.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>if you already have the 18-55 range get the Canon 55-250IS - it's a very sharp lens</p>

[geoffs1]

<p>The downside of the 55-250mmIS is its focusing motor. It is not USM, so it may focus slower and/or hunt more than the 28-155mm IS. I went through this decision when I got my 40D a couple of years ago, and am very happy I went with the 28-135mm IS. Andy is correct, it's a very nice little lens with very even performance across apertures and focal-lengths.</p>

[charles_davey]

<p>I was not impressed with my copy of the 28-135 I have now sold it. If you know just how to use it it can make pretty good pictures, but you have to beware of certain trouble areas. I would rather have a lens with less trouble areas. Basically in my opinion if you can get the 28-135 cheap enough and you don't mind not having wide angle then go for it. Otherwise you might just use the 18-55 IS for a walk around. I get great pics with mine. (best value zoom currently i think) and then get your 70-200 L for zooming. I have not used the 55-250 but everyone says its pretty good performance for the money also. might check adorama for a refurbished if you want to save some money.</p>

[jim_newman5]

<p>I heartily agree with Andy C. A 28-135 has been my primary lens with my 50D for the past year and it has perfomed magnificently. It's a bit of a rattle-trap compared to the "L", but don't worry about that and rule this lens out.</p>

[chinmaya]

<p>Canon 28-135mm is a very good lens, I have made 16x24 size landscape prints, and its very shap.<br>

For some, 28mm is not wide enough, it will be great walkaround+inexpensive lens on a full frame.</p>

<p>Canon 70-200mm is one god-dam sharp lens, Canon 55-250mm won't match the IQ of 70-200mm.<br>

And as you might expect there is whole world of difference in pricesing,<br>

55-250mm is USD $250+<br>

70-200mm nonis is USD $600+<br>

70-200 is is USD $1000+</p>

<p> </p>

[dogbert]

<p>I've owned both.<br>

The 28-135 is a nice enough lens. Its USM focussing is quicker than the 55-250 and has a metal mount, non-rotating front element. It is a bit wobbly though. It is best shot stopped down a stop or two. Its IS is ok but of the oldest design and good for maybe 2 stops.<br>

The 55-250 is sharper, including wide open, has a long range. Its lighter, with plastic mount, but less wobbly. It has a rotating front element and focussing ring. Its IS is much better than the 28-135, easily good for 3 and maybe 4 stops.<br>

So if your priority is fast focussing go the 28-135, if its sheer optical quality and better IS go the 55-250.</p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>I would have to totally disagree with Geoff. The 28-135 is just a great lens, nearly the equal of the 24-105. The 55-250 is of a much flimsier character and is really a good step below the 28-135.</p>

<p>But at the end of the day, they are two totally different kinds of lenses. You may as well ask, do I need a 14 f/2.8 or a 180mm Macro?</p>

<p>You need to decide what you need before you pick your lens.</p>

[ed_k__north_carolina_]

<p>The 28-135 IS USM is one of those lenses that lots of people have an opinion on. Too many people seem to think it's the lens that takes the picture, not the photographer.</p>

<p>The lens is nowhere near as bad as some make it out to be. It is my favorite walk around lens on my 30D or 40D.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

 

[brett_w.]

<p> if you look at sites like www.photozone.de <br>

the Canon 55-250 is significantly sharper and has better image resolution compared to the Canon 28-135</p>

<p> </p>

[andrew robertson]

<p>If you look at this link - http://software.canon-europe.com/files/documents/EF_Lens_Work_Book_10_EN.pdf you will see that the 55-200 has lower resolution than the 28-135.</p>

[bob_king2]

<p>"the Canon 55-250 is significantly sharper and has better image resolution compared to the Canon 28-135"<br>

"you will see that the 55-200 has lower resolution than the 28-135"</p>

<p>The EF-S 55-250 IS is a different lens to the old EF 55-200.</p>

<p>As far as I know Canon did not make a 50-250</p>

<p>With regard to the 28-135, it was the first lens I bought with my 300D and 18-55 kit. I found it wasn't wide enough without the 18-55 to back it up. I find the 28-135 to be quite respectable, even on a 5DII until I got a 24-105L, and even here the difference is not night and day.</p>

<p>If you can get the 28-135 cheaply as part of a kit with the 50D then well and good, though a twin IS lens kit with the 18-55 and 55-250 may provide a better interim solution. They are both light and would be good for travel. The 70-200 lenses are significantly larger and heavier (I have one).</p>

<p>Cheers, Bob</p>

<p> </p>

[brett_w.]

<p>right, the Canon 55-250IS is NOT the same as 55-200<br>

Don't get confused !</p>

<p> </p>

[jswysh]

<p>On my EOS 3 this was my "vacation lens". Pretty much the only lens I needed when sightseeing on vacation. 24mm on the wide end would have been nicer but 28 was ok. Very rarely did I have to take this lens off the camera body to swap lenses out unless I wanted something very specific. Now on my XSi I still find it useful but a bit less so. I find myself changing lenses more often. Swapping my 17-35mm on the camera when I want something wider. I still love the lens, but on my APS-C body Im finding it not as wide as I would like. That being said, having it be the equivalent of a 215 on the long end is pretty nice</p>

[don_bryant2]

<p>There are some bad copies of the 28-135 out there. I have one and I have 2 friends that own one, all used with the 50D and other Canon DSLRs such as the 40D and the 5DMkII.<br>

Mine produces excellent results and the same goes for one of my other two pals. My second friend with the lens had terrible problems, with about half the image out of focus all the time on any body he tried. In the end he returned it to Canon for repair. So results vary.</p>

<p>If you have a good one it's very good walking around zoom at a very reasonable price. I also use mine as a backup lens at weddings or occasional use by a second shooter, so I have confidence in my copy.</p>