Canon 28 -135 IS USM or the Sigma 28 - 135 Aspherical IF Macro.

[babette_ross]

I think I want a longer "everyday" lens. I currently have the Sigma

28 - 80 3.5 - 5.6 Aspherical mini macro zoom and I want to get a 28 -

135.

 

I've been trying to decide between the Canon 28 -135 IS USM or the

Sigma 28 - 135 Aspherical IF Macro.

 

I currently own the 70 - 300 IS and I love having IS for that lens

but having the Macro feature in this focal range may be more useful

to me, since I tend to use that a fair amount now. Plus I like the

closer focusing distance and the 1:2 magnification

 

At B&H the cost difference is $270 saved if I go with the Sigma (and

I see that as $270 toward upgrading my Rebel G to Elan 7 sooner.)

 

The question is, how different are the optics between these two

lens. I know the canon is a bit sturdier but the other sigma has

held up for me just fine. Is there a significant distance in corner

to corner sharpness between these two lens and in distortions?

[jay_.]

Seems like you've already made up your mind to go with the Sigma. For me there's no contest. I wouldn't even consider a slow, variable-aperture consumer zoom like this if not for the IS.

[arniemilowsky]

Babette:<p>

I have the Canon 28-135 IS USM to use as a vacation snapshot lens, and it performs quite well in that capacity. The IS is very helpful. I've had Sigma lenses in the past, sold them all and bought the equivalent Canons (28-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L), and am much happpier with the Canon optics; particularly sharpness, contrast, and quality of the bokeh. My advice is to spend the extra money on the glass.<div></div>

[citizensmith1664875108]

Ignoring the IS, the 28-135 is Canons best quality consumer zoom. So the extra money isn't just paying for the IS, its paying for a lens that provides good contrast and sharpness over a good range. You'll even see people with 28-70L lenses and similar say if they could only carry one lens then the 28-135 would be it.

[les]

I think Canon 28-135 IS USM.

The lens is slow, but for static shots the IS adds two extra stops. Can't beat that.

Sharpness is decent, though primes like 50/1.8 or 1.4 are better. 28-135 may come close (but not quite) to the 50/1.8 sharpness, at focal length about 50 to 80, stopped down to f8 or f11.

In short: optically is equal or slightly better than other comparable zooms, but has the IS (again !) and FTM.

You will not be regretting extra $ spent.

[harold_lassers]

Here are some thoughts in both directions.

1. I like my Elan 7 a little bit more than my used Rebel X, but the IS on my Canon 28-135 is REALLY cool. Go with the Canon

2. I suspect a 28-135 IS will still be a neat lens when used Elan 7's are $99 at B&H. Go with the Canon

3. My first Canon 28-135 was terrible. TEST the Canon when you get it.

Canon isn't perfect, B&H gave me no trouble exchanging it. - Trust but verify and go with B&H.

4. If you want magnification, Kenko extention tubes get you there and more, cheaply. - stay with what you've got.

5. My old Sigma 28-70 f3.5 is very sharp, don't know about the 28-80 but the Canon was not really an upgrade in sharpness over my sigma 28-70 f3.5-5.6. - stay with what you've got.

6. The IS feature is Very Ultra Cool in hand held macro

Go with the canon + a Kenko extenion tube.

 

I hope this was more helpful than confusing ;-)

 

Bath abbey, 1 second hand held, standing, with no leaning or bracing

28-135 IS

[yakim_peled1]

Easy. 28-135 IS. Reasons already explaind above.

[unclebuddha]

Wow! You folks have convinced me. I have a quick question about IS. Does it drain the camera batteries MUCH quicker than a non-IS lens and do you need the battery pack with it? THANKS!

[witolda_maruszewska]

Yep, IS does drain batteries at a rapid rate...

 

My personal experience of this is with a 100-400L IS mated to an EOS 5 camera body. I expect to get between 20 to 30 rolls of film off a 2CR5 battery with my non-IS lenses, but when I am using IS nearly all the time, I only get about 12 rolls off each battery. I have also noticed this when using the 100-400 on a 10D with the rechargeable battery.

 

What I've found is that while the camera still works reasonably well using the remaining charge, the autofocus tends to suffer as it can't seem to lock on properly.

[derek_linney]

I've not noticed the 28-135 significantly drain batteries. Of course you only need switch on the IS when needed. Not much point in using it if you are shooting at 1/250 sec and at 35mm focal length. (Unless you have been taking way too much wine on your photgraphy trips).

<p>

I have a 28-70 f2.8L which is stunning, but most of the time the 28-135IS is the lens on my camera.

[phyrpowr]

Haven't had a major battery drain problem with my film cameras and the 28-135 IS, and the IS stays on ALL the time.

 

You (I anyway) have more handshake problem than you think, even at speeds 1/250 and above: that's why those tripod/cable release shots are so much better, it's not JUST the time you spent on composition/metering.

 

With the IS, you'll end up saving money (in the long run) by not taking all those"insurance" shots to make sure you got your shot at 1/30, 1/60 or so. When I'm on vacation I might shoot 25-50 rolls in a week, and I just don't have the "shaky" throwaways anymore, except at ridiculous speeds like 1/2 or 1 sec handheld

 

This is THE "walking around" vacation lens for Canon

[eos 10 fan]

<a href=http://www.sigma-photo.com/html/pages/28_135_38_56.htm>Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 Macro</a> <br>

<a href=http://www.dpreview.com/news/0306/03061701sigma24135lens.asp>Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5</a> <br>

<a href=http://www.tamron.com/35mm/35mm_af/a24135.htm>Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6</a> <p>

--

[eos 10 fan]

I forgot to add their closest focus distance: <br>

Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 Macro = 50cm <br>

Sigma 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 = 50cm <br>

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 = 40cm <p>

 

By way of comparison <br>

Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM = 50cm <p>

 

--