What is your opinion on the Canon 28-135mm Ef USM lens

[sean_atherley]

<p>Is this a good lens for an intermediate photographer with mostly humans as subjects in his photo shoots?</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>Yes. It is a bargain at their current used vaule, low to mid #200s for a great copy.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>This is one of those lenses that some love and others hate. I have no experience with it, but am of the mind that cheaper zooms entail compromises that result in less than optimal image quality. </p>

<p>The zooms that I do have experience with in this general range are the 24-70/2.8 L and the 24-105/4 L. Both are excellent , but both are, alas, expensive.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I own this lens as a new sample and also a new sample of the current, upgraded 17-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS. Using them side by side on a 1.6 crop Canon XS body, the 28-135 has slightly better sharpness and color rendition at the same focal lengths and apertures, but at times also has slightly more chromatic aberration. (This is correctable with Canon DPP software.) My 28-135 sample also has a loss of sharpness in the left area of the frame, taking it below the 17-55 there. So my experience with this lens is good, but mixed. I like the longer reach, an equivalent 216 mm at the long end. Otherwise, I'd probably keep the kit lens on for its lightness and better C.A. characteristics.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>My copy was good at the wide end and soft at the long end. Sold it.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Its a very mediocre lens, nothing really special, but if your looking to get your feet wet with a DSLR you may be happier with the standard 18-55 IS kit lens. you get more on the wide end and imo it will give you a more interesting field of view and at great bargain. Also if your shooting people you may have more fun with a 50 1.8.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>I think its useless in the digital age. It would be a good walkaround lens 10 years ago for an average photographer on a film camera, but it really has no use now. Its not high enough quality to use on a full frame camera. The full frame sensors are designed to get the most detail and sharpness out of a photo, and this "mediocre" glass would only hold back a FF camera. Its a very odd range on a crop sensor camera. The 28mm acts like a 45mm on the wide end, a very boring wide focal length. For a crop camera, I'd go for a zoom that is 17mm or wider on the wide end, and for a FF camera I wouldn't get anything less than L glass, for a zoom anyways. The non-L primes are great quality and more than suitable for a FF camera.</p>

[sumo_kun]

<p>I bought one new a few years ago when I started photography in film. As a next step up from a kit lens its good. Its also very convenient with its wide zoom range and IS. It was my travel lens. It did everything I needed.<br /> However the quality simply is not there. Its soft at the long end and it has a lot of CA. Its also slow. Its cheap now so maybe its worth a try but I wouldn't expect it to perform anywhere near as good as a prime or a decent zoom. As a reference I had a shot taken at about 30mm or so of a landscape, stopped down even. I used a tripod etc. I enlarged it to 8x10 and it was not sharp at all. At a distance you would not notice but start looking a little closer and you can easily tell its soft.<br /> As a result I bought a whole Nikon system with primes... but that was another bad choice as I would later find out ;)<br /> That lens has taken many memorable images for me but from a quality point of view, you can do a lot better.</p>

[nathangardner]

<blockquote>

<p>17-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What lens might that be? Do you mean 18-55mm IS kit lens, 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, or 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS? I can imagine the 28-135mm being better than the 17-55 or 15-85 in any aspect, so I assume you're talking about the 18-55mm kit lens, which isn't exactly a high bar to compare anything to.</p>

 

[mbkissel]

<blockquote>

<p> I can imagine the 28-135mm being better than the 17-55 or 15-85 in any aspect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Nathan - I can imagine you meant "I can't..." instead of "I can..."</p>

[ron_steedman]

<p>The 28-135's a good walk-around lens <em>outdoors</em> <em>if not shooting landscapes nor architecture</em>. It can also be a useful extra lens to add telephoto capabilities to your portfolio. Professional photographer Monte Zucker frequently used the lens on a Canon 10D when shooting portraits.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nathan Gardner: I think its useless in the digital age.... I can imagine the 28-135mm being better than the 17-55 or 15-85 in any aspect</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 28-135 exceeds the 17-55 f/2.8 in one obvious aspect--reach! Similarly, when you need to drive a nail, a hammer beats a fancy screwdriver everytime. It's a bit soft on the telephoto end, but it's cheap, sharp enough even then for most uses, and comes with IS and USM. I use a 17-50 or 17-55 more often, but use the 28-135 often enough to justify keeping it.</p>

[ron_steedman]

<p>Note, for the sharpest results with the 28-135 on the telephoto end, stop it down to f/8 or so.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>The Canon 28-135 does not have the same image resolution or sharpness compared to the cheaper 18-55IS and 55-250IS - like others have said, it's "mediocre" ! </p>

<p> </p>

[adam_gifford]

<p>I like my 28-135, the ring USM is nice since it focuses fast and the front doesn't rotate. It has good reach for a general purpose lens.</p>

<p>The only thing i don't like is that 28mm isnt wide on a crop sensor camera; so it is tough to use it as the only lens i carry. Usually i pair it with my 10-22.</p>

[ed_v.]

<p>I bought the 28-135 IS for more than I'd like to admit. It did OK as long as there was plenty of light around or I was using my 430EX. Not at max aperture, though. Photos would come out grayish and soft. I sold it for the 17-85 IS and am much happier.</p>

<p>The lens I use mostly for people is a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's roughly the same price as the 28-135, maybe a tad more expensive, but the quality is amazing. No IS though. I use a 40D and probably could be classified as an intermediate amateur. Hope this helps.</p>

[shambrick007]

<p>I'd pass. Had one about 18 months back. Not critically sharp at any focal length, and low contrast.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Tough crowd.</p>

<p>Like its older EF-S equivalent (the EF-S 17-85mm IS), this is a lens, as Mark says, that "some love and others hate."<br>

It has all the compromises that make it possible to have this sort of range in a lens, including some vignetting and distortion. These even occur in the 24-105mm L lens, mostly loved. These are easy problems to fix, of course, but the 28-135mm honestly is an older lens design. However, it's far better than "useless" and works very well on a APS-C body if you're not the sort to use much wide angle (which it has none on, if you understand what I mean). On such a camera it is a very flexible normal to mid-range telephoto, great for street work and such like uses.<br>

It's a tremendous bargain for a good, older IS lens, but the newer 18-55 IS and the 55-250mm IS kit lenses make it a little less attractive if you're not one of those who can't abide "cheap plastic junk" as some put it it. ;)</p>

[ted_marcus1]

<p>I use the 28-135 in combination with a Tokina 12-24. Together they make a decent and affordable two-lens set. The Canon lens isn't "L" quality, but it's more than adequately sharp with effective IS.</p>

[ron_steedman]

<p>Sample images from the 28-135mm IS:<br /><br /><a href=" /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/42494522@N02/4609524783/in/pool-28-135">http://www.flickr.com/photos/42494522@N02/4609524783/in/pool-28-135</a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgn/4606820802/in/pool-28-135">http://www.flickr.com/photos/rgn/4606820802/in/pool-28-135</a><br /><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexkywalker/4617657340/in/pool-28-135">http://www.flickr.com/photos/alexkywalker/4617657340/in/pool-28-135</a><a href=" /><a href="

[nathangardner]

<p>Thanks Mark, I did mean "can't."</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Nathan:<br>

Wow, your comments about it being useless in the digital age is a bit harsh and must reflect your own particular use of it, I guess?<br>

I used it for outdoor shots (mostly city buildings) on sunny days and heck if I could tell the difference in sharpness, color, detail etc. from my then Canon 28-70 f/2.8 - on my 5D. Quite frankly, as a starter lens for a small sum of money, it's a great choice. Sure, indooors it may not be wide enough on a crop, it will need a flash indoors (just like my 24-105 f/4 that replaced it), but as an overall walkaround for those who don't need true wide angle, it's a bargain.<br>

It's sold often in mint condition out of the 7D, 40D and 50D kits for as little as $200 (that's what it cost the kit buyers to acquire it new); I paid less than $200.<br>

The above discussion reminds me of the love/hate relationship also with the 17-85 IS and the lenses are quite similar. Many people who have complained about both of these lenses have never used them (or hardly used them).<br>

I think it's a worthwhile, light walkaround on a full frame or on a crop. But not for $400 new...</p>

 

[sean_atherley]

<p>ll of your opinions have done wonders for my buying experience. How does everyone feel about the 28-105 USM ?</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>How does everyone feel about the 28-105 USM</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dig deep and get the 24-105mm IS L lens, or at least get the 28-135mm. The 28-105mm has no IS, is really, really cheap and is simply a low cost lens that Canon can make so cheaply that they don't bother to stop making it at all. At the prices the 28-135mm with IS goes for, there's little reason to go for this ancient kit lens these days. Occasionally some naive buyer will pay up to $175 for it on eBay, but it's often to be got for not much over $50 if you are patient, which is about what it's worth.</p>

[bill_dewberry]

<p>I had the 24-105 and thought it was mediocre; an expensive mediocre, certainly not worth the cost.</p>

[robertbody]

<p>I would not use a lens with such a large range. The larger the range the more "compromises" there will be.<br>

I find 24-70mm an acceptable range. <br>

"People photos" can mean many things. For portraits of a single person or 2, I would prefer 3 primes, 50mm, 135mm and 85mm. There are several versions of 50mm and 85mm lenses, and for 135mm it's 135mm f/2.<br>

I would pick the portrait lenses for depth of field control, and their specialized design for portraits and better performance wide open. Zooms have their place, but I prefer zooms to let me frame landscapes, not people shots.</p>