Comments on Canon EF 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

DoctorIt · May 24, 2004

Anyone have any experience with this lens?

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_28-135_35/ef_28-135_35.html

In my quest for awesome long fast L-series glass, I neglected to notice that daily, I have my cheaper than dirt 28-80 Sigma mini-zoom macro on the camera almost all the time.

Until now. I want better everyday glass!

Andy · May 24, 2004

28-135 i.s. lens rocks
i really dig this lens, click here for some examples

it's on my camera most of the time.

DoctorIt · May 24, 2004

thats exactly what i wanted to hear.

thanks!

pathfinder · May 24, 2004

DoctorIt wrote:

Anyone have any experience with this lens?

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_28-135_35/ef_28-135_35.html

In my quest for awesome long fast L-series glass, I neglected to notice that daily, I have my cheaper than dirt 28-80 Sigma mini-zoom macro on the camera almost all the time.

Until now. I want better everyday glass!

This is the only lens I have added to my wifes 300D kit which comes with the 18-55 zoom standard. The 28-135 IS is not very fast - f5.6 at 135, but the IS helps make up for it. Stop the lens down 1 or 2 stops and it is a nice performing optic. Light and small also! I wish she would let me use it sometimes. It is a nice walkaround lens for the street. Cheaper than L glass Primes too! But it will not accept a telextender with good results I suspect.

If I had known how much I would use a standard zoom - in my case a Tamron 28-75Di - which is MOST of the time, I might have bought the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L. (Fish will shoot me if he hears this.) ((Edited Addendum - Both Fiosh and I did subsequently buy the Canon 24-70 F2.8 L . Standard length zooms are just so handy they are on my camera unless there is a specific need for a different focal length that I cannot capture by zooming with my feet. I kept the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di because it is so usefull also.))

But the 28-135 IS, like the Tamron 28-75Di are real nice walk around workhorse lenses. Go for it.

Andy - you just beat me to it!

DavidTO · May 24, 2004

I'm gonna piggy-back on this whole discussion.

A friend loaned me a lens which I could purchase from her if I like it. It's the Canon 70-200mm f4L.

If I were to return her lens and buy one new, I'd probably get the 28-135 that you guys are talking about.

I have the kit lens for the Rebel for the wider angles I need, but I've got to say, after using the L glass, it's really hard to use that kit lens. The only ray of hope is DXO which looks like it may turn the kit lens into something decent.

Anyway, any input to help me make this decision about the two Canon lenses? The 28-135 and the 70-200?

tmlphoto · May 24, 2004

Go for it!
I am also very happy with my 28-135 IS lens. It is my default, walk around lens. The focal length range works well indoors and out. The dealer sold me a 17-40L lens for my first lens and I think this was a mistake. The 28-135 is much more versatile. The IS system works very well.

bkriete · March 18, 2005

I'm resurrecting this thread because I'm trying to decide between the 28-135 and the Tamron 28-75 [alphabet soup] 2.8. I could use the extra 50mm on the Canon, and the IS sounds quite useful. But I'd also appreciate the faster constant aperture of the Tamron, especially for indoor photography. The Tamron also looks like it might have a slight edge in optical quality. Any comments from those who have used both?

DoctorIt · March 19, 2005

bkriete wrote:

I'm resurrecting this thread because I'm trying to decide between the 28-135 and the Tamron 28-75 [alphabet soup] 2.8. I could use the extra 50mm on the Canon, and the IS sounds quite useful. But I'd also appreciate the faster constant aperture of the Tamron, especially for indoor photography. The Tamron also looks like it might have a slight edge in optical quality. Any comments from those who have used both?

I honestly don't think you can compare these lenses head to head. They have totally different goals. The Tamron is a less expensive alternative to what has become dare I say a "standard" zoom lenth (24-70mm). By all accounts this a great lens and great way to save (lots of) money over the Canon L version. The 28-135 is a great lens, as many of us have said here. I'd venture to call it a little more versatile since it has the lenght and IS over the Tamron. If I was making that decision, I'd have to think about what my next lens purchase was going to be. If I knew I'd be hard pressed for lens money, I'd buy the Canon for its versatility... but then again, I shoot on the street mostly. If I shot mostly indoors, I'd take the shorter faster lens.

As for optical quality, someone (mercphoto I think) just did a side to side comparison of the Tamron, the Canon (and the Canon L). In my opinion, the Canon was better than the Tamron, others disagreed, but it was that close.

gus · March 19, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

thats exactly what i wanted to hear.

thanks!

Carefull Doc...its well proven that this bloke can shoot through an empty dunny roll with cling wrap over each end.

Andy · March 19, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Carefull Doc...its well proven that this bloke can shoot through an empty dunny roll with cling wrap over each end.

thanks gus, (i think?)

Khaos · March 19, 2005

DoctorIt wrote:

Anyone have any experience with this lens?

http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lenses/ef_28-135_35/ef_28-135_35.html

In my quest for awesome long fast L-series glass, I neglected to notice that daily, I have my cheaper than dirt 28-80 Sigma mini-zoom macro on the camera almost all the time.

Until now. I want better everyday glass!

It's a good lens, the only reason I'm selling mine is that I decided to go with the Tamron 28-75 indoors and give myself a neck ache with the Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS outdoors and indoors sports and clubs. So, I don't use it.

I haven't tested it with the 580 speedlite since I got that flash, but maybe I will and post some photos and hopefully move my lens. I seem to be becomining addicted to "fast" glass. I want some money to go towards getting the Canon 35 1.4 L:D

Khaos · March 19, 2005

This is an example of what it can do indoors in low lite, 1600 ISO with no flash. No PS on this one.

bkriete · March 19, 2005

My eventual plans are to add a 10-22 ef-s on the short end and a 70-200 4L on the long...so from that perspective, the Tamron is a better fit. On the gripping hand it'll probably be at least six months before I add either of those lenses. And I usually find myself looking for more length from the kit lens...and I just bought the 50/1.8 today for indoors. So I guess it'll be the 28-135. Thanks for helping me make up my mind.

Khaos · March 20, 2005

I just got the 10-22 not that long ago. I played with it a little indoors last night. If it's nice tomorrow I'm going to play outside a little with it. I wish it came with a lens hood though.

If I get anything interesting with it, I'll post them.

gus · March 20, 2005

Khaos wrote:

I just got the 10-22 not that long ago. I played with it a little indoors last night. If it's nice tomorrow I'm going to play outside a little with it. I wish it came with a lens hood though.

If I get anything interesting with it, I'll post them.

Def interested to see them asap...i want to order one this week & need some final assurance

Khaos · March 20, 2005

It's raining today. Now I wish I would of done my errands today and went to the park yesterday. Here are 2 indoor shots with the 10-22. Both at 10mm. Both are handheld with indoor light, so they are slightly blurred.

BridgeCity · March 20, 2005

Khaos wrote:

It's raining today. Now I wish I would of done my errands today and went to the park yesterday. Here are 2 indoor shots with the 10-22. Both at 10mm. Both are handheld with indoor light, so they are slightly blurred.

Wow! I like the turnout of that lens. Any post work done?

Maybe I should change my want list

10-22mm or 16-35 L
24-70 L
70-200 L

Khaos · March 20, 2005

BridgeCity wrote:

Wow! I like the turnout of that lens. Any post work done?

Maybe I should change my want list

10-22mm or 16-35 L
24-70 L
70-200 L

Only a slight exposure increase in RAW

gus · March 20, 2005

Khaos wrote:

Only a slight exposure increase in RAW

Ta mate...now i have to get one.

Sort of lens that will show both your ears if your not carefull.