12 reasons to ditch the 28-135mm IS USM: Why should I keep it?

[philgeusebroek]

Hello,

<br>

I just got me an EF 24mm f/2.8 to complete the following set:<br><br>

 

 

 

EF24mm f/2.8 + EF50mm f/1.4 USM + 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro.<br>

<br>

<br>

 

 

The benefits over the zoom are as follows:<br>

<br>

 

 

1. All are much sharper; sharper wide open too.<br>

 

2. Brighter viewfinder - good with polariser.<br>

 

3. 50 is much faster.<br>

 

4. Macro focus much closer with 100mm.<br>

 

5. 24mm is wider with much less distortion than 28mm.<br>

 

6. 24mm focuses closer.<br>

 

7. Blurred backgrounds for portraiture at 50mm and 100mm.<br>

 

8. 50mm not as intrusive to people: smaller overall camera size.<br>

 

9. If a lens breaks, I can still shoot with the other two.<br>

 

10. Lenses are not as prone to "dust-sucking"<br>

 

11. 100mm shows greater magnification at same distance than zoom

at<br>

 

135mm. (Don't believe me? Try it!)<br>

 

 

12. No variable apertures to contend with.<br>

<br>

 

 

So the question is why keep the zoom? If you have to use it at f/8

to get sharp pictures (see luminous-landscape.com and reviews this

site), then the IS only gets you to f/4 shutter speed equivalents,

and you lose any hope of isolating a subject. Plus you are putting

your faith in a large, complex lens that sucks in dust over time, and

seems fragile compared to the trio above. <br>

<br>

 

 

The three lenses mentioned, plus an Elan 7 body and a smaller flash,

all fit into the small Lowepro Street/Field Utility Case! So space

doesn't seem to be an advantage either. Another good case is the D-

Res Waist Pack AW with the flip-top lid. You can even fit those

three, plus a 200mm f/2.8ii L into the case if you hang a Belt Pouch

50 AW from the belt part for the body.<br>

<br>

 

 

The convenience of the EF28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM lens, relative to

the above advantages, seems quite moot now. How convenient is owning

a lens that limits one in so many ways? If one could afford only one

lens, then the zoom would be the one. But having the above three

gems, why would one ever want to pick up the zoom again? On

walkabout, both packages take up roughly the same space on your

shoulder, but the zoom seems to offer much less.<br>

<br>

 

 

The only reason I can come up with to keep the zoom is that my TSE

24mm, 28-135mm IS and 200mm f/2.8L all have the same filter diameter,

and this makes a good medium size/medium weight kit.<br>

<br>

 

 

Can anyone give me another good reason to keep it? <br>

<br>

 

 

Thanks,<br>

 

Phil

[colin_jones]

Zooms have always been and will always be a comprmise. The zoom you are on about wouldnt be half so good or raved about so much if it werent for the IS. Its a good lens but not great without it.

 

I would suggest you leave the zoom at home for a while and see if you miss it. If you dont then its a gooner, if you think if only I had the IS or the zoom or..... then have a rethink.

 

Unless having it or not having it affects the shots you can take, it will continue to gather dust.

 

Good luck to you!

[catchlight]

As always, the ideal kit depends on the type of shooting you are doing. I happen to own the three great primes you mention, and use them a lot for landscapes and macro work because they are sharper and lighter than zooms. I still use my zooms a lot, though, for shooting weddings and live theatre.<p>

For example, the wedding I shot last weekend took place outdoors on a wild, windy point by the ocean, and the zooms on two bodies allowed me to get great tight, medium, and wide shots without lens changes. ("Yo, Reverend, hold it a sec while I switch lenses" isn't really an option). Zooms offer a similar advantage when I'm shooting concerts and live theatre, and can't move around at all.<p>

I agree with the previous poster who suggested that you shoot with the primes for a while to see if you miss the zoom. That will cost you nothing, and after a few weeks you'll be sure. Me, I need both primes and zooms to meet the diverse demands of landscape and event shooting.

[eric_onore]

Let me start by saying I agree with all of your points regarding advantages. I frequently shoot with a similar Minolta manual focus setup, or a Contax G1 with three primes. The advantages of the zoom are obvious however;

 

1. Less cost to cover the range.

2. Ultimately less size and weight to carry.

3. No need to change lenses. May be critical in certain applications.

 

How important these considerations are to you will obviously vary with the individual. I own this zoom, and find it pretty convenient and usefull at times.

[chuck]

"12 reasons to ditch the 28-135mm IS USM: Why should I keep it? "<p>

You should keep it because you find the IS zoom practically useful despite the fact that you seem beset by angst over zoom's ideologically inpurity compare to a collection of primes.

[bobatkins]

Well I can't think of a single reason to keep it. Send it to me and your worries will be over.

[philgeusebroek]

I never would have thought that 12 concrete disadvantages could be construed as 'ideological impurities'. The first half of your post offered concrete advice, but I don't comprehend what you mean about 'idealogical impurities'.<br><br>

 

I will indeed 'keep it because I find it useful' in situations that the primes are not. The question was more like, "What situations could it possibly be more useful than the three primes?".<br><br>

 

Thanks to all posters so far. Good points were made and I will definitely hold off before getting rid of it. Are there any other reasons to keep this lens? <br><br>

 

Bob: Send me a check (or PayPal) for US$499.00 and I will definitely stop fretting over whether to keep it. I'll even throw in the lens hood and the original packaging. :)<br><br>

[chito_baclig]

I did consider ditching the 135 IS. You missed to mention that you have to avoid panning. I am really close but as others mentioned, I have to consider my needs. In people events such as weddings and the likes, concerts and street fairs, you can stand still and shoot with zoom. In this crowded places, for primes,you have to look behind you as you frame. For the primes, low light is the more obvious reason, next is depth of field imho, no need to mention the quality. This is not the zoom to compare with primes.

 

For my portraits, I also bought the 70-200mm 2.8L, with big time consideration of primes. But again, it still boils down to my needs. I also need to shoot from far in church altars. Find a good spot depending on the next action you anticipate and keep on shooting.

 

And to be honest, I still am considering replacing the 135 IS for primes since I already have the 50 1.8, for the love of the prime quality. (pardon repeating) But as I start to think for what use? Zoom lenses still is what I need. For group shots, table shots, I love this 135 IS since you are almost sure not to get hand motion blurs.

 

I might buy the 135 SF prime because SF filters are almost the price of this lens.

 

IMHO

 

Regards to all.

[jackflesher]

Phil:

 

I just sold my 28-135 for many of the same reasons you cited. HOWEVER, I will say the zoom allowed me to:<P>

 

1) frame my images perfectly without shuffling my feet;<BR>

2) change focal-lengths in a heartbeat relative to changing the primes;<BR>

3) it had IS and IS technology is worth about 3 stops when the light gets low -- making the 28-135 at f5.6 the same as my 35 at f2.0; AND<BR>

4) it took up less space in the bag -- for that matter I didn't even need a bag since I wasn't carrying any other lenses!

<P>

 

Cheers,

[bruce johnson]

Phil you pose an interesting question. If I carry my 20-35, 50/1.8 & 100/2.8 Macro (somewhat similar to your combo) I rarely use my 28-135. In fact I'm leaving the 28-135 IS at home more and more often. Nevertheless if I want to walk about with one lens on my body - no bag - then I'll take the 28-135. It's sort of like two different kits.

 

When do I do this? I do this when most people would leave their SLRs at home and take along their P&S instead. Bike tours, playing in the park, backpacking trips when photography isn't my prime concern, etc. I find this much less limiting than a p&s. Also the IS helps when I'm not carrying a tripod. Don't forget that the IS will allow you to gain 2 stops of aperture hand held - that means greater depth of field in a handheld camera. Don't underestimate this capability. Sometimes I'll throw the 50/1.8 in a pocket to get a fast lens with shallow DOF as a second lens since it's so small and light. Oh, and for the poster who said you can't pan with this lens - there is an off switch for the IS, put it to use...

[scott_saltman]

I guess this is similar to the need for quick focal length at a wedding, but I find the zoom very useful when photographing a child. Follow an active 2 year old around and try to get candids of him/her playing, a zoom is nearly a necessity. I miss too many shots when I'm using a 50 mm or a 100 mm prime.

[vinayak_agrawal]

People have already mentioned a few reasons why 28-135 is not all that bad despite the fact that all the 12 reasons mentioned are true. Here's another one (for those who don't already have a collection of equipment and are planning to buy lenses):

 

the collection of the three primes costs MORE than the zoom. Any two lenses in the three you mentioned together cost MORE than the zoom + 50/1.8 . And if cost is a consideration then the zoom isn't too bad. For the reasons others have already mentioned it'll be enough for a beginner more often than not. And when somebody has advanced enough (s)he'll already know what (s)he needs.

 

Of course if one had money then one won't even consider 28-135, but as far as I can guess, such a person will then send an email similar to yours with a title "Why should I keep Canon (or Nikon, or Minolta)" telling everybody that he has found the supreme knowledge that german lenses are after all the best.

 

Vinayak

[jay_.]

I also own the 28-135IS along with the EF28/2.8, EF50/1.8 Mk.I, and Tamron 90/2.8 SP Macro. However when I travel with these lenses I tend to shoot the 28-135 more often. In wilderness settings where there is more freedom to reposition myself for the composition I want, the primes do fine; but in "cilivization" the flexibility of the zoom is a great advantage. Optically the 28-135IS is not that far behind the Canon primes, whose performance at the 2-3 largest apertures is good but not astounding (I also shoot Leica R primes on my EOS bodies with adaptors, and prefer them for wide-open shooting). But I would happily sell the 28-135IS for a 28-85 or 28-105/2.8-L-IS if Canon were to do the right thing and replace the good but aging 28-70/2.8L USM.

[chachi_arcola]

Let me begin by saying I ditched my 28-135 IS for the exact same set-up of three primes. I don't make a living shooting people or weddings, and I found that the 28-135 compromised image quality in almost every way over the primes. Mine sucked in a huge piece of crap about a month after I bought it. It sucked the batteries out of my EOS 5, and the picture quality sucked, except at f/8 on a tripod, which defeated its only possible redeeming quality - the IS. The barrel distortion at the long end was unbearable. My 24/2.8 at wide open handheld dusted the 28-135 in terms of optical performance at 28mm wide open (distortion, contrast and of course sharpness). I decided that if I really needed a zoom, I would get a 28-70 2.8, or otherwise, go back to the $200 28-105 that in my opinion, outperformed the 28-135. The usual disclaimers apply of course, I may have gotten a bad sample of the 28-135, and of course, I don't shoot PJ or weddings where a zoom is a must.

[philgeusebroek]

Dominic, your comment about barrel distortion at 28mm also rings true for me. So much so that I don't want to put a straight line anywhere near the edge of the frame. It looks like the picture was shot underwater! I find myself choking up to 35mm to get rid of the distortion. So this lens is more of a 35-135mm for me. If I want wider than that, I have to carry the 24mm anyway. <br><br>

 

Good points about following children, and getting depth of field without paying in shutter speed. Perhaps this lens would be excellent when hiking with a monopod and a group of people that don't want to slow down for pictures - I don't have to switch lenses and I get f/11 handheld. Also, it strikes me as a paradox of 'zoomability' vs. lens speed for social events and kid shots. I thought that shutterspeeds at f/2.8 were a must for moving objects, but this is a moot point if one can never frame properly, isn't it? Perhaps a peculiarity on my part: I consider the 200mm f/2.8 ideal for social gatherings: I can shoot people and kids without them getting camera-shy, and still have a nice blurred background. I guess I never worried too much about ease of framing when I had 'stealth capability'. :)<br><br>

 

Vinayak, could you further elaborate? I quote myself (can one do that? :) ): ,"<i>If one could afford only one lens, then the zoom would be the one. But having the above three gems, why would one ever want to pick up the zoom again?</i> You say that,"Of course if one had money then one won't even consider 28-135". In your opinion, does that apply in the case of the three alternates I own, or do you think that a zoom still holds a niche in the face of those three? I have money and I am <i>still</i> considering the 28-135, because it may still have merit in <i>my</i> kit. The last sentence in your post takes on a dismissive, elitist tone, and frankly raises the hair on the back of my neck. I hope the question I asked does not connote that I have discovered any "supreme knowledge". The point was to relate my experience for constructive discussion with my photo.net peers to gain further insight in this specific circumstance. <br><br>

 

All responses to this post are helping immensely. I didn't know there are so many who have already traveled the road I am on: that insight is invaluable, and is the reason I am here. You are bringing up things I haven't thought of.<br><br>

[preston_merchant]

Phil, I have those three primes you listed, having ditched a zoom at one time. I agree with all the points folks have made about the deficiencies of the zoom and the improved optical quality of the primes.

 

But I would ditch the zoom just because it's a zoom. I found that shooting with a zoom made me extraordinarily lazy about picture-taking. And not just about not having to take a step forward or backward. There's a fair amount of discipline and workmanship you have to employ when shooting with a lens that doesn't change when you rotate the barrel. You have to think more about the shot before you take it, and you have to know your capabilities and limitations. All of this makes for better photography.

 

Yes, there are times when having a zoom, say a 28-70L, might be advantageous, but I would rather carry two primes on two bodies.

[chachi_arcola]

Preston made an excellent point. The zoom and the primes really represent two completely different styles of picture taking. To me, one (the zoom) consists of rapid fire, on-the-go shooting for travel or whatever. Provia 100 would be the slowest film I'd use in that context. Good luck trying to calculate the hyperfocal distance on the zoom. The end product of this equation is, essentially, a snapshot. There's nothing wrong with that if it's what you're after. Just accept that you're not going to get really high optical quality with this approach. In certain contexts, you can't possibly do any better - because you have to "get the shot".

 

The primes to me represent a heavy tripod, Velvia, a cable release, and the goal of making a nice 11x14 or even 16x20 enlargement. The end product of this equation, if everything goes well, can be fine art. This is my preferred approach if I can pull it off, and why I carry the three primes and not the zoom. In many contexts, this approach is difficult or impossible.

 

I'm prepared to be flamed on this one.

[philgeusebroek]

An aside to this question:<br><br>

 

Image quality VS. versatility, is there really a conflict?<br><br>

 

It suddenly struck me that most people here talk about going to prime lenses to sacrifice convenience for image quality. I have found that replacing the 28-135mm with 24mm + 50mm f/1.4 + 100mm Macro opens up whole new worlds of versatility! Image quality was a minor consideration compared to all the things this trio lets me do now that I couldn't before.

<br><br>

If convenience means always having the ability to get the shot you want, then these primes are more convenient than the zoom for me, at virtually no cost in portability. Obviously this new-found convenience has made me question the merit of keeping the zoom around - you can do that much more with the 24+50+100macro. Still, there is evidence that my 28-135mm IS USM is a better tool in a few specific applications, such as when there is no time to frame properly, or when I want hand-held DOF.<br><br>

 

I guess this aside is to point out versatility to those who think the only advantage of primes is sharpness. That is not what I have experienced.<br><br>

 

This is an aside because I don't want to get into another generalized hypothetical debate about primes vs. zooms. My question is specific to the four lenses mentioned.<br><br>

 

We now return you to regularly scheduled programming. :)

[philgeusebroek]

To clarify the aside before thing gets messy: by 'most people here' I meant most on photo.net, not on this thread.<br><br>

 

Preston, I found the same thing regarding my laziness quotient. The primes did make me think in a different way than the zoom, and I did grow to understand each focal length much better upon using them.<br><br>

 

Dominic, I guess I am on the bridge between your worlds of thought. I use Fuji Sensia 100 as an all-around slide film, and like to think of my kit as ready for anything, from casual hand-held snapshots at parties to elbows-in-the-dirt, tripod-mounted, exascerbatingly-calculated landscape vistas and 1:1 macros. A small, lightweight kit that will do it all. I have two bodies and sometimes load Velvia in one of them, but the lenses I take usually don't change.<br><br>

[preston_merchant]

Versatility and convenience are not the same thing. A zoom may be more convenient, but primes--for me--are more versatile. The "limited" focal length opens up my imagination in ways the zoom simply doesn't. This, coupled with the image quality and speed issues, etc., make primes more versatile. So I agree with you, Phil.

 

But I don't think it's the sacrificing of convenience that's the issue. It is, as Dominic notes, a matter of one's working style.

[vinayak_agrawal]

Phil wanted me to elaborate so here it goes:

 

 

Here are the prices of the four lenses in question and of 50/1.8:

 

50/1.4 $295

24/2.8 $290

100/2.8 $470

 

28-135 IS $385 (were you trying to fleece Bob by asking him for $499 for a second hand lens when a brand new one is available for less)

50/1.8 $65

 

(all prices from bhphotovideo imported versions)

 

As can be seen just one lens is more expensive than the zoom. The combination of ANY two is more expensive than the zoom + 50/1.8

 

As for your "having the above three gems, why would one ever want to pick up the zoom again" question, let me ask you another question first: if you already have so many lenses and still need to ask this question, why did you buy all these lenses in the first place? My own reply to your question is what others have told again and again: cameras don't make photographs, neither do lenses, people do. I learnt it one day when strolling past Kings Parade in Cambridge I saw a toddler trying to negotiate the doorsteps of a shop. Before I could even adjust the 28-105 on my camera his father/uncle lifted him and went inside the shop. If I couldn't take the shot when I had a zoom on my camera you can imagine what I would have done if I had only prime lenses.

 

As for your having quoted about zooms being the only option for the less fortunate with financial constraints, read your mail again. The praticular sentence you have mentioned is in a context where it means nothing at all (don't respond to this with "I don't think so" be honest with yourself, just a small little sentence in that kind of context hardly means anything).

 

As far as giving thought to photography and lazyness is concerned, if you're on a wooden bridge on top of a river in steep mountains with a magnificent valley in front of you and deep jungle all around, then you'll know that primes can be useless in certain situations.

 

And by the way I don't understand one thing, why can't people who spend hours just thinking about how to take a single shot spend a few hours thinking which type of lens will have limitations in which situations. It is not difficult to imagine exactly what kind of situations will call for a zoom. I have asked the same questions around here but then I'm into photography only for three months and don't own much by way of equipment.

 

And then there is a tendency of escapism. People claim that primes are better because they force you to think. Now what I can't undestand is that such people who like to be forced to think can't think of there own free will but enjoy something that forces them to think. Again for a beginner it might be an advantage because he probably wont even know what to think about, but then more often than not he wont be able to buy primes anyway. For the more advanced people, if they think they must be forced to think and then think that those with zooms are being lazy, my response to them is: sorry guys but you're probably looking in a mirror.

 

Primes definitly have advantage over zooms in every technical sense, arguing about that is foolish to say the least, but cost is a huge factor. And I must say you should hold on to your 28-135 if for no other reason than the fact that the money that can be gained by selling it wont be of much consequence. You probably wont be able to buy a decent P&S camera for that much, and 28-135 on your elan 7 will be better than most P&S cameras.

 

To be honest I crave for primes but don't have money for them. So I bought this particular zoom instead along with 50/1.8 When I have time to explore I use the 50, when there is no time, and that happens a lot, I use the zoom.

 

The one rule that I've read again and again is to shoot shoot shoot and then edit edit edit. And I don't think if you follow such a regime then equipment will matter. Let me ask you a qeustion: what would you prefer, an ultra sharp photograph of a checker board (only checker board) or a less than sharp photograph of a child sleeping in the arms of his mother? My choice will be the latter. And so I think in photography the art the equipment wont matter a lot. Practice will, which means expenses in film and processing. And if you do have enough money and time, then its best to buy the zoom, have some discipline (so you do walk around whenever you can), and then spend the rest of the money to shoot as much as you can.

 

Vinayak

[philgeusebroek]

Thanks very much for elaborating on your opinions. I think we got our wires crossed. Things are becoming contentious and that is not why we have a forum.<br><br>

 

I will address your concerns one by one. Please read carefully as I really am trying to be clear. I always endeavor to say what I mean, and mean what I say.<br><br>

 

I was trying to get the message across that economics were not a factor for me. It does not matter to me if they are a factor for you. Perhaps I should have said, �If I (me) could afford only one lens, then the zoom would be the one.� My lenses were bought one at a time, months apart. The 50mm f/1.4 came as part of a kit I spotted in a local paper. I sold two of the lenses on Ebay and cost-wise retained an Elan 7 and a 50mm f/1.4 for the price of a new Elan 7 body. The 24mm was bought on Ebay in mint condition for just over half of Canadian retail and the Macro was bought in nearly new condition at a US$250.00 savings. My 28-135mm USM IS was bought new at cost when a store went out of business. There is more than one way to skin a cat.<br><br>

 

So why did I buy all of those lenses in the first place?<br><br>

 

1. Had a good deal on the kit so I kept the 50mm f/1.4 <br>

2. Used to have an FD100mm macro and still wanted 1:1 <br>

3. Bought the 28-135 IS after reading the reviews. I found it much sharper and more useful than the old Tamron zoom I had before , but was disappointed in its image quality relative to the kit I was already assembling: Hence this question. <br>

4. 24mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, and the filter size is the same as the other two lenses. <br><br>

 

If you had had my 50mm f1.4 on your camera, you might have already set it to its hyperfocal depth of field at f/8 or f/11. Upon seeing the toddler you might have raised your camera and fired off two quick shots without giving a fig about what your lens was doing. Since you couldn�t zoom, you simply composed and shot, not even having to wait for AF. You are secure in the knowledge that everything from 3 feet to infinity was in focus at f/11 (5 feet at f/8). That is what you might have done had you a prime lens on your camera. Just a thought. <br><br>

 

On the contrary, �that particular sentence� was meticulously put together by yours truly, and means everything it said. That is why I said it in the first place. My only mistake was in trying to take it out of the first-person. I should have used �I�. It was placed in a paragraph that discussed its relevance upon acquiring three primes.<br><br>

 

About the bridge: Good Point. I will remember that in considering whether to sell the zoom or not.<br><br>

 

The advantages/limitations I have listed are ones that I have run up against. I speak from experience. I used to own three L-series/high quality Canon FD zooms which covered 20mm to 200mm. The choices I have made are based on experiences with the limitations of those lenses. I retained the 28-135mm IS lens because I thought it would be convenient and portable relative to the primes I had settled on for �serious� play. This post is because I now am surprised to question whether it could fill ANY role better than my three primes, and am looking for feedback from others who share the same experience.<br><br>

 

My point was that I have discovered that my primes have many practical advantages over the 28-135 IS. Not just technical ones. Also I can get about US$350.00 for it on Ebay. That�s another 550EX or a PB-E2 for my EOS 3. Or a crap-load of film and processing. :)<br><br>

 

Given your situation and experience, I might have bought exactly the same lenses that you did. As it happened I started out with a beat-up Canon AE-1 with a Kiron 28mm f2, FD 50mm f/1.8 and beat up 70-210 f4 lens. Got it all for roughly US$70.00 from a friend. A T90 plus 24mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/4 macro may cost about the same or less than you paid for the kit you have now, if you still crave primes. You seem focused on cost and this would be a LOT of bang for your buck. You would have to focus yourself, though. Think of a T90 as a manual focus EOS 3 and you are not far off. I couldn�t bring myself to sell mine yet.<br><br>

 

You are on the right track about practicing. It is the only thing that will make you a better photographer. But as you practice, you may find that your current lenses aren�t good at some things you want to do. It is just a question of the right tool for the right task. I feel that my 28-135mm lens is a bit like a crescent wrench: it does ok most of the time, but it isn�t really good at everything I want to do. But my other wrenches don�t take up much more space than my crescent wrench and they do a lot more, so should I keep it? :)<br><br>

 

Saw your pics. Nice work!

 

[philgeusebroek]

...Stupid login timeout. Forgot to paste the header back in...

 

;P

[yakim_peled1]

Why to keep the zoom ? Simple, to get the focal lengths not covered in your primes. I'm very surprised that no one mentioned this but what if you want the 35mm or the 85mm look ? Neither of your lenses will help. I have a 50mm and a 100mm and when I shoot indoors I always frustrated 'cause I want a 85mm (mostly) or 35mm (rarely). Outdoors I wanted a 135mm or a 200mm.

 

I thought about buying the 85/1.8 USM and 135/2 USM L but was tempted to buy the 70-200/4 USM L. The 135/2 USM L alone is more expensive. However, after only one month of use I sold it. The ability to quickly frame is immensely important when you don't have enough time to change lenses or move with your feet. I mostly shoot my kids and they move MUCH faster then I can. On those times I care less if the focal length is (e.g.) 70mm or 85mm or 100mm and care more to get the proper framing. As someone who has not yet migrated to digital - no DSLR or even a scanner - this is very important to me.

 

Why did I sell it ? For two reasons.

 

1. I found that f/4 at 200mm is limiting when lights get low. For me, handheld ability is a must and a tripod is out of the question. Maybe a monopod.

 

2. I found that f/4 and f/5.6 sharpness was below my expectations. I got better sharpness from my 50/1.8 at 1.8 !!! Yes, I know that the consensus is that this it a great lens but my sample was nowhere near to what others described. Did I get a lemon ? Maybe but the guy I sold it to was extremely happy. Does it have to do with the fact that he uses a DSLR while I use a film one ? I really don't know.

 

Anyway, as I like the great framing ability of the zoom, I'm going to give the 70-200/2.8 USM L IS a try.

Comparing it to a 85/1.8 USM, 135/2 USM L and a 200/2.8 USM L set which I considered I will gain :

1. More focal lengths.

2. Three stop gain with IS for better handheld ability.

3. Time saving for not having to change lenses. With my kids, it's essential. They sometimes remind me of Heizenberg's principal of uncertainty. On other, more relaxed times, they just remind me of two small tornado storms.

4. The zoom costs less.

5. Better resale value. I live in Israel and here, no-one wants primes. If, for some reasons, I will need - naturally, I will never WANT to do this - to sell them, I will lose a lot of money.

Disadvantages ? Well, yes.

1. The zoom is much heavier. I don't mind this. I am not the smallest guy in the world.

2. The faster primes will enable me shallower DoF. Well, this hurts. I really wanted this.

 

All in all, I think that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I do hope that the 70-200/2.8 USM L IS - at f/2.8, naturally - will not disappoint me as the 70-200/4 USM L did.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

One reason: Disney World. The 28-135IS is a great lens when you want to carry one lens on one camera and no tripod. In practical application with the IS it will allow you to take more different photos, and sometimes sharper photos (considering the IS) than you could take with any other one lens you mention. Thus it is a party, etc. If you are always carrying an array of lenses, and a tripod, you probably don't need the 28-135.