50mm 1.8 vs 28-135is @50mm please help!

[mkelpie]

After a month of using my 10D and mostly using the 28-135 Im finding

at least 50% of my shots are taken at close to 50mm. So obviously my

next purchase thought is a 50mm prime.

 

Now for you guys in the USA or the rest of the world, it�s a piece of

cake to run out and pick up a 50mm for 60 buck from your local store

but Im an Aussie expat living in Vietnam and I cant find one FLOM

(for love or money)

 

Ill have to wait until an expat friend does a trip to Bangkok or

elsewhere. And no I cant mail order one. Viet customs.. Grrrr. So

it�s a pain in the &^% to get one�

 

Before I go to the effort to get one, Id like to know�

 

 

Will the Canon 50mm prime 1.8 (lets not get into a discussion about

which 50mm is best) BLOW the 28-135is @50mm out of the water or will

I have to look real close to find the difference?

 

Thanks,

Mark

[jim_mueller2]

The 28-135IS is a fairly sharp lens but I don't particularly like its build quality. There is a post in this forum (day or two ago)regarding rattling sounds etc. coming from that lens.

 

I like the 28-105 3.5-4.5 a little better. It's as sharp or sharper and the bild is better.

 

A 50/1.8 will be sharper than either of those lenses but you would have to do BIG enlargements to actually see the difference. I have the best of both worlds, a 50/1.4 and a 28-105 3.5-4.5.

 

Just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

[bruce johnson]

The 50/1.8 isn't going to BLOW away the 28-135, because the 28-135 just isn't that bad. At f/8.0 or smaller apertures the difference will be very little. If you're buying strictly for image quality, I'd say don't bother.

 

BUT, if you want a very small lightweight inobtrusive lens for wandering around the streets or indoors with, get it. If you want to shoot at apertures of 5.6 or faster for freezing action, low-light (not that low!) photography, or for selective focusing, then run, don't walk to get a 50mm prime. For those purposes, the zoom can't compete because it is incapable of those wider apertures.

 

I frequently use both and I never select the prime because of it's better image quality. I use the zoom where IS and zooming makes sense, I use the prime when its size and larger aperture make sense. Enjoy them both, but they're quite different lenses.

[PuppyDigs]

"The 28-135IS is a fairly sharp lens but I don't particularly like its build quality. There is a post in this forum (day or two ago)regarding rattling sounds etc. coming from that lens.

 

I like the 28-105 3.5-4.5 a little better. It's as sharp or sharper and the bild is better."

 

Hmm, I have both the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM and EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM (late MK I) and build quality is about equal. Both lenses are totally silent--not a single rattle during the last 4 years I owned them. Sharpness-wise they're pretty close, but the EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM has the edge, at least on the short end.

 

I also have the EF 50 1.8 (MK I) and you won't see much difference between it and the zoom stopped down. With full frame 35 mm you'll notice sharper edges in big enlargements. With the cropping factor of the 10D that might be insignificant. However, you'll get a brighter viewfinder, a light and tiny lens, less flare and a very fast aperture. It's excellent from F 2.8 and at its best by 5.6. Wide open its not great but you can get images you can't otherwise take.

[jim_mueller2]

I found the link about some complaints regarding build quality on the 28-135 USM IS within this forum.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Pqm

 

Perhaps this was just a fluke occurance.

[mark_mitchell5]

IMHO, I've gotten many good shots from the 28-135IS, depending on the circumstances. I also have a 50 1.4. My opinion (mine only) it blows the 28-135 away at the 80mm range (on a 10D), and does the same at the 50mm range with film. To me, not a fair comparison, prime vs. high end consumer zoom. Yep, the build quality of the 28-135 leaves much to be desired, but for what it is, it's good. The 28-135 is a worthwhile purchase, a very fine 'walk around' lens, the 50 (either one) is VERY good.

[steve_dunn2]

<p><a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/zoomvsprime.html">I have both the 28-135 IS and the 50/1.4</a>. The 50/1.4 is better than the 28-135 @ 50, but not dramatically so. If I know I'm going to be shooting at 50 and I have time to swap lenses, I'll usually use the 50, but if it's inconvenient for me to swap, I just use the 28-135 and I know I need not worry about image quality. The 50/1.4 is better than the 50/1.8 but the majority opinion is that it's not a huge difference; I'd expect the 50/1.8 to be between the 28-135 and the 50/1.4.</p>

 

<p>If you're going to make huge enlargements, get the 50. If you need the extra speed (about three stops) for shallow DOF or better background blur or extra flash range or higher shutter speeds, get the 50. Otherwise, don't fret over it; use the 28-135, and if a convenient opportunity to pick up a 50 surfaces, go ahead.</p>

 

<p>Regarding the 28-135 vs. the 28-105, I upgraded from the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM (the seven-blade version of the original generation) to the 28-135, and at least with the specific samples I have, <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html">the 28-135 is clearly better optically</a> and has about the same build quality.</p>

[jim_mueller2]

>> I have, the 28-135 is clearly better optically and has about the same build quality.<<

 

Hey...you have done a very nice test site. I booked marked it. Thanks!!!

[happy_chappy]

Mark,

<P>

I had a similar dilemna. I wanted to know if spending money on good lenses was worth the rewards especially as my printer may let the final image down. See my previous <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ozg">posting.</A>

<P>

I shoot mainly with the 28-105mm USM 3.5-4.5, which many say is almost, if not on, a par with the 28-135. Like you, I heard everyone say how good the 50mm 1.8 is; and when I was in my local camera shop during the week they had one in stock. I bought it on impulse and gave it a go. I am very surprised with the result. See the attached image. Look at the detail that was captured in the background tree. The contrast is better too. I also noticed a slight magenta cast to the zoom's image. Even though the pictures are taken on different days the location was the same as was the exposure.

<P>

My biggest concern is now 'what is sharpness'; what is out of focus and what is just pure poor quality optics? Again, refer to my <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Ozg">previous posting </A>for my ramblings.

<P>

The test shows that the prime 50mm is sharper, without a shadow of a doubt. However, what gets me is this... the depth of field for both pictures, shot at 50mm and at f8 should be the same. The 50mm prime <B>'appears'</B> to be sharper for a greater depth of field. The zoom, on the other hand, seems softer and out of focus. Now I never questioned my lenses before I saw this. But what are you happy with. Do you view the softness as out of focus, or softness because of poor optical quality. Personally, I think it is a matter of <B><I>perception</B></I>.

<P>

My summary, <br>

The 50mm is sharper for a greater depth. (Possibly only 'percieved' because of better quality optics).<br>

The zoom shows softer background detail. (Poor quality optics may be the cause but the perception is of an out of focus image).<br>

With the 50mm lens, to throw the background out of focus as much as the zoom I would need to open up the aperture a stop or so. In effect, to achieve the same amount of depth of focus the prime becomes 'faster'. (Think about it before flaming me on this one!)<BR>

In my test images, both lenses performed well but differently. Both seem to have captured a similar amount of foreground detail but with the prime showing better contrast. The prime gives good detail, the zoom shows a more de-focussed background.<br>

The background details are smaller which equates to a higher lpm in a lens test. The prime is able to resolve the finer details better than the zoom.

<P>

I don't know where you live Mark, the US price for the lens is $70, the UK price is £70. It is the cheapest lens Canon do. If you can afford to buy it then do so and give it a go. Make up your own mind. If you decide you don't like it then you should be able to sell it very easily on eBay for 60 of whatever you paid for it. (It must be the only lens to hold such a high residual value!)

<P>My only gripe about the lens is the close focus of 0.45m. I would have preffered something a bit closer. But then I should use a Macro..

<P>

Go figure..<div></div>

[perry_l]

I own 28-135, 28-105 and 50/1.8.

 

i have compared 28-135 with 28-105 on my D60 on same subject, the 28-105 bit soft and colors fake out, colors is big issue to me, happen on the 50-80 range, at wide and long end both lens same sharpen, but 28-135 still better colors.

 

50 at f1.8 very soft(useless), acceptable for me is at f4, compared to 28-135 zoomed at 50 f4.5 and 50/1.8 at f4, both lenses sharpness very much the same can't tell difference, colors on 50/1.4 bit warm.

 

i tested use large size, on each lens over 15 digital pictures...object with very small colors words.

 

after few years thousands dollar spend on camera lenses, Now average sharpness on lens do fine for me, colors is more important to me, good colors mostly produced from UD and other glasses, i very happy with non-L/cheap 28-135 result.

 

i won't go for 28-70L(heavy/$), because i have compared 28-135 to my 70-200/f2.8L, the 70-200 color/sharpness slightly better.

 

remember we shots colors, on b&w is not an issue.

[eos 10 fan]

Start with the <a href=http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/>50/50</a> user review. <br>

Then read the 50/50 + <a href=http://cybaea.com/photo/lens-quality-50.html>50 Vs. 28-135</a> user review. <br>

Of course, no decision should be made without reading the <a href=http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html>EOS lens FAQ.</a> <p>

 

--

[eric_speelmon1]

For portraits on a 10D, you can't get much better than the 50/1.8 or50/1.4. The best portraits (IMO) have smooth background blur. You just can't get this with the 28-135. I used to own this lens but sold it because it didn't work for the kind of photography I like. Here's an example of a portrait of my son taken with the 50/1.8:

[alxmlv]

I have a 50mm 1.4 and a 28-135 IS USM. Both are great lenses and I love the 50mm, because it is fast and lets me get away with low light shots, blur the backgrounds nicely etc. I feel that everyone needs a fast prime in their collection for a variety of situations where a standard zoom will not suffice.

[yakim_peled1]

To date, the 50/1.8 was my best lens. I had several lenses - Tamron 20-105/2.8, Tokina 100/2.8 macro, Canon 17-35/2.8 USM L, Canon 70-200/4 USM L, Canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM - and this humble lens outperformed all. I only sold it because I found that I don't like the 50mm view.

 

Happy shooting , Yakim.