Canon 28-135 IS

idoteech · February 27, 2011

What do you guys think about this lens? It came with my 7D and I don't know if I should keep it or sell it. I have a 70-200 for outdoor work and I also have a 50 1.4 and a Tamron 28-75. Do you think the IQ from the 28-135 is better than the Tamron?

Thoughts appreciated.

Eva

ziggy53 · February 27, 2011

The Canon EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM is an OK lens. It's definitely better than many "kit" lenses but not terribly wide on a Canon crop 1.6x camera like the 7D. The lens is also a little slow in aperture terms. The focal length range can be very nice for outdoor work.

The Tamron 28-75mm, f2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) is likewise none too wide on crop cameras but it does have a constant aperture of f2.8. The advantage of this type of lens (constant aperture of f2.8 or better) is that it activates the higher precision properties of the center AF sensor. It also allows more light to enter the lens and so, it should be able to focus in lower light levels than the 28-135mm above.

My preference is to use a more "standard" zoom range lens for a crop camera body, coupled with a second lens like the 70-200mm.

I am extremely happy with the performance and properties of the Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM. This is a very versatile range for both a walk-a-round lens and a social event lens for weddings, birthdays, etc. The 17mm end provides approximately twice the normal FOV while the 55mm end is a moderate tele and OK for some portraiture. The constant f2.8 has the benefits I described before and the image quality is very much like Canon's "L" line of lenses. Focus is fast and accurate and the IS works nicely too. The only potential issue with the lens is build quality, but I haven't found it to be a problem for me.

It should all depend upon your intended uses, so more you tell us about you use and application the better we can advise.

Brett1000 · February 28, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

What do you guys think about this lens? It came with my 7D and I don't know if I should keep it or sell it. I have a 70-200 for outdoor work and I also have a 50 1.4 and a Tamron 28-75. Do you think the IQ from the 28-135 is better than the Tamron?

Thoughts appreciated.
Eva

no, even the cheap 18-55IS is sharper than the 28-135

idoteech · February 28, 2011

Thanks. I sold the lens. Ziggy: Do you recommend the 18-55 2.8 over the 28-70 f4L? I'm looking for a good zoom for my studio work, but I'm beginning to think I should just go with with a prime and move around.

Scott_Quier · February 28, 2011

idoteech wrote: »

Thanks. I sold the lens. Ziggy: Do you recommend the 18-55 2.8 over the 28-70 f4L? I'm looking for a good zoom for my studio work, but I'm beginning to think I should just go with with a prime and move around.

There isn't a 18-55 f/2.8. Are you think the 17-55 f/2.8? Huge difference in terms of both price and performance. You don't want the 18-55 .... trust me.

I have both the 17-55 and have used the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L (don't know what a 28-70 f/4L might be

). They are both optically stellar performers. The shorter lens would lend itself to 2/4 and full body portrait work if working room in your studio is an issue. If you have the room, I think I would go with the 24-70 f/2.8 L.

idoteech · February 28, 2011

Oops. Sorry. Yes that's what I meant. I need to start proofing my posts.

Thanks for the advice. My studio is only 20 ft long but my Tamron does just fine so I'm assuming the 24-70 will also.

Eva

paddler4 · February 28, 2011

Do you mean the 24-70 f/2.8 L? I am not aware of an f/4 L in that range. If that is what you mean, why buy it if you have the Tamron 28-75? They are substitutes for each other. The 28-75 optically a very high-quality lens, particularly on a crop sensor camera like yours (or mine). It lacks several things that the L lens has, like full time manual focusing and USM AF, but if you are not finding their lack a problem, why spend 3 times as much for a lens that is not optically all that much better?

Given that you have a good basic set of three lenses, I would be inclined not to buy anything else until you find some specific ways that those three lenses limit what you want to do. That will happen :-) It almost always does.

Scott_Quier · March 2, 2011

paddler4 wrote: »

Given that you have a good basic set of three lenses, I would be inclined not to buy anything else until you find some specific ways that those three lenses limit what you want to do. That will happen :-) It almost always does.

I missed that you have the Tammy. Given that, I think the above is some great advice.

I have the Tamron as well (I've had it for a number of years) and it's one of my favorite lenses because it is stupidly sharp. If you get "a good copy" of the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L, it will be better than the Tammy. I say it that way because there are some older and newer "horror" stories out there about QC issues with this lens - though it's been a while since I've last seen one. So, maybe, Canon has cleaned up it's act with regard to this lens?

Canon 28-135 IS

Comments