chris_hawkins Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 I've read the <a href="http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product? product_id=325 " ><b><u> comments </b></u> </a> in the ezshop section. Anyone else have any comments on the lens? I've got a 70- 200 IS so I'm overlapping focal lengths quite a bit. The 28-70 would be nice but $$$. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 Oops. The 28-70 has been replaced by the 24-70 F2.8L and is $1250 at Adorama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oistein Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 If you've got a 70-200IS, why do you think the 28-70 is sooo expensive..? And it would definitely make most sense to go for this lens (or the new 24-70 which is better sealed) - get it from Adorama. The construction is awesome and the pictures are stunningly sharp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodus Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 This is more of a question than an answer to the above. The 70-200 IS offers 3 stops improvement, where as the 28-135 offers only 2 stop. Will Canon upgrade this lens soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 Oistein: Everybody runs out of money sometime. It is just a matter of when. :-) I've got a 24mm F1.4L that I could sell to help pay for a 24-70, but I really like this lens and do not want to part with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oistein Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 Well, then the answer is obvious to me! Get the 50 1.4! And maybe you should sell the 24 L and buy the cheaper non-L 24 2.8...(have seen some really god test results/sample shots with this lens!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oistein Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 sorry, if you love your 24 1.4, -do not sell it of course ;-) keep it and just get the 50 1.4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_potts Posted July 5, 2003 Share Posted July 5, 2003 The 28-135 is a good lens. It is not up to the 70-200 standards, but nonetheless, it is good. I wouldn't worry about the overlap. I know that people talk about this, but in reality if you are trying to get a picture quickly and you can move up to 135 easily, you will be far more likely to keep the lens on rather than switch it. You might miss the shot if you switch. I own both of these lenses as well as the 50 f/1.4. They are all good for their own purposes. I am not interested in selling any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted July 5, 2003 Author Share Posted July 5, 2003 I have a 50 F1.4. The true desire is for a 24-135 F1.4 with the same quality as the primes. Oh what the heck, it might as well have image stabilization and be priced less than $2000. ;-) I'm coming closer to valuing the image making speed of zoom lenses more the the slightly higher quality and light gathering capabilty of primes. Maybe I just need to purchase one and do some testing on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrei_lau1 Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 Beware that the 28-135 is not that sharp below F8. If your work requires low light avoid this lens. Though it is in general a good travelling lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_dunn2 Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 <cite>The 70-200 IS offers 3 stops improvement, where as the 28-135 offers only 2 stop. Will Canon upgrade this lens soon?</cite> <p>You can bet they won't, for two reasons. One is that they've never upgraded an older lens with a newer IS version; for example, buy a brand new 300/4L IS USM and it will still have the same second-generation IS that it had when it was introduced in 1997, even though Canon has released two generations of IS since then (tripod mode was added with the IS superteles in 1999, and faster startup and an extra stop were added with the 70-200/2.8L IS USM in 2001).</p> <p>The other is that the 28-135 is a consumer zoom lens. Every new L-series IS lens has included the latest generation of IS as of the date of introduction. The 28-135 did not; it has only mode 1, like the 75-300 IS, even though mode 2 was introduced on the 300/4L IS USM the year before. This fits Canon's pattern of deciding which features belong at which level - such as the lack of spot metering on the Elan and lower bodies, even though their metering sensors are perfectly capable of implementing it. It looks like consumer IS lenses get mode 1 and that's it.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck_dowling Posted July 6, 2003 Share Posted July 6, 2003 I have the 28-135, and I must say that it is one of the most usefull focal ranges for all kinds of shooting except perhaps wildlife and long distance sports shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kodus Posted July 13, 2003 Share Posted July 13, 2003 Thanks for your comments, Steve. I do hope Canon realizes that Nikon now has the 24-120 VR good for 3 stops. That's one stop over Canon's 28-135 IS plus the extra 4mm on the short end, which is more useful than the extra 15m on the long end. In addition, the old 24-120 has significantly less distortion than the 28-135. However, the 24-120VR is more expensive than the 28-135. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted July 20, 2003 Share Posted July 20, 2003 You have the 70-200 IS and 24/1.4. The only thing which really fits in is 35/2 and 50/1.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now