replacing a pro zoom by a consumer zoom for studio and landscape photograpy

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<p>Since I got a pair of excellent prime lenses for my 5Dmkii, the 24-70L sees much less use. I'm thinking of replacing the zoom by a lighter and cheaper zoom like the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS.</p>

<p>I use the zoom primarily for reportage / studio (with flash) and travel / landscape (with tripod) photography. Both situations, flash and tripod photography, don't require large apertures.</p>

<p>My question is: How well does the 28-135mm perform at 5.6 - 11 apertures? How is contrast and sharpness at these settings? Could I see some shots taken with a 5dmkii at f/5-6 - 11 ?</p>

<p>PS: has anyone else replaced their pro zoom by a consumer zoom for similar purposes?</p>

<p> </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Like <a href="http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=28&camera=1113&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=5.6&aperture_max=11&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3">this</a>.</p>

<p>Depending on your wants and wishes pretty o.k. I'd say.</p>

<p>Regards, Matthijs.</p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>Like <a href="http://www.pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=28&camera=1113&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=5.6&aperture_max=11&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this</a>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks! On first sight, looks good to me although I'm not sure how reliable those examples are. How much editing went into the final product and how do those shots look on print?</p>

<p>There's a lot of barrel distortion at the wide angle but I guess this can be automatically corrected in post, right? Same thing for vignetting.</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>There's a lot of barrel distortion at the wide angle but I guess this can be automatically corrected in post, right? Same thing for vignetting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Canon's Digital Photo Professional Version 3.11.26.0 will correct for vignetting and barrel distortion. Currently, their added Lens tab allows you to update their Digital Lens Optimizer with selected <strong>EF</strong> lenses only.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>Pretty sure the EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM is one of those lenses ;-)</p>

<p>I recently put the 28-135 on for the first time in probably over a year. I was surprised just how well it could do given adequate lighting. For casual, and personal, shooting I don't have any reservations about using it in lieu of the 24-70/2.8. But it really depends on what I'm shooting (I don't do a lot of landscapes). <br>

It is certainly capable of pretty fine detail in the center, but tends to ghost a smidge w/ high contrast at the edge of the frame, even stopped down a bit (on FF). Maybe stopping down to f8/11 would resolve? IDK. The only other caveat is that you MUST use a lens hood. If you don't, even with mild side and ambient, it can dramatically impact your contrast. <br>

In a nutshell, I'd <em>NEVER<strong> replace</strong></em> my 24-70 w/ the 28-135, but considering a 28-135 can be had for a song and a dance (~$250 and up), as a complementary lens it works quite well, and is capable (in the right circumstances) of producing very fine work.</p>

<p>Attached is one I took w/ the 28-135 on a 5D2 a couple weeks ago. 127mm @ f6.3 1/5000</p><div></div>

[sarah_fox]

<p>The 28-135 was my first Canon EF lens. I later upgraded to a 24-105. Although I prefer the 24-105, I have to say the 28-135 offers great value and is a solid performer. The test shot linked by Matthijs is about what I would expect from my lens (which I still have as a backup). It's quite sharp, even at the edges, but it does suffer a bit from CA (evident in the sample image). My larger complaint about the lens is its build. The zoom, especially, is a bit jumpy and difficult. You might also consider the 24-105/4L as a smaller/lighter and somewhat less expensive alternative. It's a fine lens, and I've enjoyed mine. There are probably a lot of them on the used market, as it is a kit lens. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The 28-135mm IS is underrated. My daughter has one and finds it satisfactory.<br>

As Sarah says, the 24-105mm L lens is certainly better. It is more expensive than the 28-135mm, if cheaper than the 24-70.</p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>You might also consider the 24-105/4L as a smaller/lighter and somewhat less expensive alternative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That woudln't save me a lot of money: the 24-105L is in the same price category as the 24-70L.<br /> For studio portrait, travel and candid, the long end is more useful than the wide. I will happily trade 24mm for 135mm :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In actual practice, the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS lens is often sold for less, especially in what is called "white box" status--where someone has taken advantage of the bundle price and then sold off the lens separately.</p>

[abbas_haider]

This was my first lens I used with my 7d, Most of the time it is on my 7d and I m doing great with it except missing wide on

28 on crop sensors which I don't think it will be an issue with mkii 5 D.

Also you may consider 18-135, I haven't used it but one of my freids is doing well with it. Also put in mind 15-85 which is

having nice optics too just pick up the range that work best with it.

[colin carron]

<p>Maybe I was unlucky but my 28-135 was a mediochre performer and outclassed by my current 24-105 which as JDM says can be picked up relatively cheaply when split from a body + lens bundle. The 28-135 would still be cheaper . Purely based on my own experienced I would say that after the primes the 28-135 might disappoint espically at the long end.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>What JDM said. Look for the 24-105 on the used market for maybe $750-800. That said, the 24-105 isn't too good at the 135mm end, so maybe the 28-135 is your lens. For $250 or so, it would be relatively cheap to find out how you like it.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>What Sarah said. ;)<br /> My 24-105mm really sucks at 135mm. :0<br /> As I said, I think the 28-135 IS was the original "walk-around" lens, and despite a grey hair or two, it's still darn good, and can't be beat for the money.</p>

<p>BE careful not to get an EF-S lens, they won't fit on a 35mm sensor camera.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>The 28-135 is a great lens. It doesn't test all that awesome, but from a standpoint of practical usage, it's excellent for daytime snapshots. Avoid using wider apertures with it, and you'll be very happy.</p>

<p>It's easy to get so bogged down in the tech specs that you forget what you're actually going to use the lens for.</p>

[igord]

<p>I used 28-105/3.5-4.5 lens here, which is around the same in performance as 28-135, at aperture around f8 it is very good in studio. I had pro zoom on the shelf but it is too heavy when working for the whole day.<br>

[don_bryant2]

<p>I own the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS and the 24-70L.<br>

Generally speaking the 28-135 is an under rated lens at least by my experience; I like using it on my EOS 3 when doing portrait assignments with B&W film (TMAX 400 II). I have 2 friends that have owned that lens, both accomplished photographers and very knowledgeable about lenses. One friend hated his copy, the other loved it. And that often seems to be the case. People either praise or dismiss this lens. Even though this is just anecdotal evidence about the performance of the 28-135, I think there must be copies of this lens that are poor performers. Canon produced them in copious quantities since it was sold as a kit lens.</p>

<p>My 28-135 also works fine on my digital bodies. Having said all that if I had to choose the 28-135 or the 24-70, I would keep the 24-70 lens, unless you can get a great bargain and have return rights of the 28-135. Even so I wouldn't let the 24-70 go, it's not that much heavier.</p>

<p>My 2 cents. </p>

[jiamisot_jiamisot]

<blockquote>

<p>I used 28-105/3.5-4.5 lens here, which is around the same in performance as 28-135, at aperture around f8 it is very good in studio. I had pro zoom on the shelf but it is too heavy when working for the whole day.<br /><a href=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">

</blockquote>

<p>Have you made those shots with the 28-105? If so, the zoom is very good.</p>

<p>Btw, how do you convert to b&w? Good work.</p>

[igord]

<p>To <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=7101005">jiamisot jiamisot</a><br>

Yes, I have. The photos printed on magazine pages look always very good, I am always suprised when looking at them.<br>

This is just simple photoshop conversion with bit of curves, thanks.</p>

[dogbert]

<p>I used the 28-135 for a while but was never really happy with it. Stopped down it performs ok but even then is doesn't match the performance of the 24-105 f4L, which I replaced it with. It loses contrast beyond about 85 mm, and was never super sharp at the long end. It also has plenty of distortion.<br>

The build quality wasn't that great either, with its wobbly duo cam design.</p>

[Mark Keefer]

<p>Gee, if you live near Philly, I'll swap you my 28-135. lol. That's an even trade, right. ;) I am using mine on a 7D and 40D, and it is an OK lens. I like it for Macro stuff and walking around, but it's not my sharpest lens, it's OK, not as sharp as my 17-40mm L or Sigma 50mm f/1.4.</p>

[joe_f3]

<p>Check out the tamron 28-75 f2.8, i think it is an excellent lens that you wouldn't be sacrificing much over your canon, it is also a good deal lighter</p>