Trying to decide

mrcoons · February 3, 2007

Whether I should continue with my Canon 28-135mm IS or get a Canon 24-105mm F/4L IS to replace it.

I understand where I am at skill-wise and realize that some of my 'problems' are mine and not the lens. That being said I am just not comfortable with this lens but I do not know why.

I cover musical events for the local school district. I have a Pro SM account but my profit will go to the music department when it gets to that point. Outdoors I have no problem with this lens and wish I had taken it to Florida back in December but that's another story. Half my year is indoors covering events like the one in this album. The first half of these photos were taken with this lens and the second half with the Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8, shot in RAW and processed with Lightroom.

Here is another gallery I shot today with this lens. These were shot JPEG and were not post processed other than being resized.

My new plan is to use 2 cameras: My XTi will have my Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L lens on it and the XT will have this lens or a replacement. (I switch to the Canon 85mm F/1.8 for portrait shots.)

My question(s) after this longwinded explanation is: am I being paranoid? Is there any point in changing? Considering my meager ability is it worthwhile to change? I know that the 24-105mm will be sharper because it is an 'L' lens as I can see the difference in the ones I already have. I have twisted myself both directions on this and am no where closer to a decision. Help!

Thanks.:bow

sirsloop · February 4, 2007

its gonna cost you ~700 bucks to upgrade if you sell your current lens. I think the L lens will perform much better wide open, and at higher zooms you'll get a full stop of light. IDK if its worth it to you, but it certainly would be an upgrade.

IMHO, there is little reason to walk around with a 70-200/2.8L.. AND a 85/1.8. The 70-200 can be a fantastic portait lens at the short end, so you would be simply overlapping lenses. It would make a lot more sense to carry around a 70-200L, plus something like a 35/2, 28-135, 24-105L, or something like a 10-22. I usually walk around with the 70-200L and either my 35/2 or 10-22 on my second body on shoots... 580ex on the 35/2 body.

S_Leeper · February 4, 2007

You might consider using the sigma 70-200f2.8 & save several hundred $. No IS, but it does focus fast & is sharp.

I agree that unless you have a real driving need the 85mm would be simply duplicative. The one negative about any of the 70-200's for portraits is their size... in that it sometimes makes the subject uncomfortable or distracted.

ziggy53 · February 4, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

... I am just not comfortable with this lens but I do not know why. ...

Comments like this make me uncomfortable about giving specific advice. You need to do an assesment to determine what it is you don't like about the existing lens, and what your true expectations are. Otherwise, you are bound to keep jumping around, looking for that unknown something.

When you use the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, focus your attention, one at a time, on particular attributes of the lens:

Does the lens "seek" too much before locking focus?
Focus accuracy?
Does the range of the zoom seem too short or long for your purpose?
Do the resulting images lack sharpness or contrast, compared to the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L?
Does the lens seem too heavy or unwieldly?
Is the f3.5-5.6 too limiting for the light levels you encounter?

etc.

Once you determine what specific things are lacking or problematic, you will have a genuine guide for purchase, and specific issues for our collective body (DGrin) to help you through.

You may even find that it is a lens "and" body issue, that lens alone may neither cause nor new lens prevent.

ziggy53

mrcoons · February 4, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

Comments like this make me uncomfortable about giving specific advice. You need to do an assesment to determine what it is you don't like about the existing lens, and what your true expectations are. Otherwise, you are bound to keep jumping around, looking for that unknown something.

When you use the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, focus your attention, one at a time, on particular attributes of the lens:

Does the lens "seek" too much before locking focus?
Focus accuracy?
Does the range of the zoom seem too short or long for your purpose?
Do the resulting images lack sharpness or contrast, compared to the Canon 70-200mm F/2.8L?
Does the lens seem too heavy or unwieldly?
Is the f3.5-5.6 too limiting for the light levels you encounter?

etc.

Ziggy, You are right, I do have issues with certain attributes of this lens.

My copy does seem to "seek" too much before locking focus, even on a well lit stage. Not a problem for concerts, for the most part. But it's why I don't use it for football or marching band.
The IS is kind of loud on my copy. I have had people turn and look at me when it makes it's knocking sound during quiet times. In my research of this lens I have seen comments from very few users with this complaint so I assumed it was just my copy. (The IS does work because I have turned it off and the difference is notable.)
To me the color I get from this lens is off a little. Maybe that's because of the light level (f3.5-5.6), I don't know. Or it's really a contrast problem and I just can't tell the difference.
Lastly there is something in the build of this lens bugs me. If this lens had a lens lock on it I'd be happier with it. Canon consumer lens are somewhat loose, so when you are carrying this lens around gravity and motion are opening up the lens. (My Canon 70-300mm IS is the same way.) This makes it more susceptible to my banging it against something. (This happened once. Someone brushed up against me in an auditorium and the lens was tapped into my arm. It then stopped auto focusing, so I took it off and put another lens on. Next time I tried it it was fine though, so I could probably have removed it then and remounted it with no problem. I just did not have time to experiment.)

I did not mention these things before because the 2nd and the 4th ones I could live with. But missing a shot or not have the image color correct is something else entirely.

Hmmm. I guess you've shown me the perspective that I needed Ziggy.

sirsloop · February 4, 2007

I know exactly what you mean about those prosumer lenses. They are all the same... the 17-85IS, 17-55IS, 28-135IS, etc. They are all made of that cheap plastic and just feel loosey goosey. As far as IS making noise...lol... IDk how audible that really is beyond like 5ft. They are probably more apt to be annoyed with the shutter slap. I also know what you mean about sticking a huge white lens in someones face. Thats why I carry around a rebel XT with my 35/2 and 580ex. The flash focus assist is a life saver!!

mrcoons · February 4, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

I know exactly what you mean about those prosumer lenses. They are all the same... the 17-85IS, 17-55IS, 28-135IS, etc. They are all made of that cheap plastic and just feel loosey goosey. As far as IS making noise...lol... IDk how audible that really is beyond like 5ft. They are probably more apt to be annoyed with the shutter slap. I also know what you mean about sticking a huge white lens in someones face. Thats why I carry around a rebel XT with my 35/2 and 580ex. The flash focus assist is a life saver!!

My 70-200 F/2.8L is too heavy for me to carry around and then to annoy people by sticking it in their face! My 28-135IS can be so slow to focus that it could have been the IS noise that bothered them!

jdryan3 · February 5, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

My 70-200 F/2.8L is too heavy for me to carry around and then to annoy people by sticking it in their face! My 28-135IS can be so slow to focus that it could have been the IS noise that bothered them!

Phhhttt! (the sound of me opening a can of worms)

Have you considered the 24-70 f/2.8? I replaced my 28-135 with this lens after much sole (& soul) searching, If you are used to carrying around a 70-200 f/2.8, this lens will seem light. I went for the 1 stop in speed over the IS on the 24-105.

mrcoons · February 5, 2007

jdryan3 wrote:

Phhhttt! (the sound of me opening a can of worms)

Have you considered the 24-70 f/2.8? I replaced my 28-135 with this lens after much sole (& soul) searching, If you are used to carrying around a 70-200 f/2.8, this lens will seem light. I went for the 1 stop in speed over the IS on the 24-105.

Actually I did consider it Dave. But everything I read led me to the 24-105 instead. The extra half a pound that it weighs and the extra reach of the 24-105 won me over.

I have not had the 70-200 f/2.8 long enough to get used to it but I'm relatively certain I'll not get comfortable enough with it anywhere but on the tripod. It will fall into the same category as my Sigma 80-400mm OS, "Hand shootable - but not for long".

Thanks!

sirsloop · February 5, 2007

IDK.... that 70-200/2.8L isnt all that bad to hand hold for extended periods of time. Maybe its cause i'm a big guy or something, but I have no problems going like 10 hours with the thing. Heck, last week I was at a zoo at 9am, shot all morning, and didnt really stop until about 11pm that night after monster jam finished. Lol... 8GB microdrive filled up on that day

rofl

mrcoons · February 5, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

IDK.... that 70-200/2.8L isnt all that bad to hand hold for extended periods of time. Maybe its cause i'm a big guy or something, but I have no problems going like 10 hours with the thing. Heck, last week I was at a zoo at 9am, shot all morning, and didnt really stop until about 11pm that night after monster jam finished. Lol... 8GB microdrive filled up on that day rofl

Maybe I should use this as incentive to get back to the gym and start working out again!

:hurt

sirsloop · February 5, 2007

lol... this wouldnt be the first time I mentioned that

I remember someone else trying to figure out how to extend their hand-holdability with their 1d and 500/4. I was like... get some meat on them bones, son!

Joking aside... my wrists are the first things that show signs of fatigue with me. You can simply adjust the way you hold the camera every once in a while to give some relief, and let the strap hold its weight when you are not taking a shot. Obviously thats not going to work with the 500... but I think its good advice for the 70-200's. They are only like 3 pounds

mrcoons · February 5, 2007

sirsloop wrote:

lol... this wouldnt be the first time I mentioned that I remember someone else trying to figure out how to extend their hand-holdability with their 1d and 500/4. I was like... get some meat on them bones, son!

Joking aside... my wrists are the first things that show signs of fatigue with me. You can simply adjust the way you hold the camera every once in a while to give some relief, and let the strap hold its weight when you are not taking a shot. Obviously thats not going to work with the 500... but I think its good advice for the 70-200's. They are only like 3 pounds

I have a jazz festival to cover this weekend so I'll give the handheld 70-200 a work out. (Hopefully the new 24-105 will be here by then too!

)

ziggy53 · February 5, 2007

mrcoons wrote:

I have a jazz festival to cover this weekend so I'll give the handheld 70-200 a work out. (Hopefully the new 24-105 will be here by then too! )

I suspect you will find that the Canon 24-105mm, f4L is a considerable upgrade, compared to the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, in almost every regard. I predict you will like this lens very much and that many of the issues you had with the previous lens fade to memory past.

Good luck and good shooting,

ziggy53

mrcoons · February 5, 2007

ziggy53 wrote:

I suspect you will find that the Canon 24-105mm, f4L is a considerable upgrade, compared to the 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM, in almost every regard. I predict you will like this lens very much and that many of the issues you had with the previous lens fade to memory past.

Good luck and good shooting,

ziggy53

Thanks Ziggy!