Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

[jonesgj]

Has anyone had any experience with this Lens?

My wife has expressed an iterest in getting a more general purpose lens for walk about like the Canon 18-200 or similar from Tamron or Sigma. However, I wondered whether the Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens may be an alternative. not as wide or long, but IS and USM.

Any advice / experience appreciated.

Kind regards

Graydon

[briansquibb]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

What camera and does she mean for closeups or nature?

Try her wiith your 24-105 and see if that meets the bill?

Brian

[Edd1e]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

Graydon, Its not one of Canons better lenses, the 17-85mm IS is probably slightly better!

[colin C]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

Hello Graydon

The more convenient a lens is with it's telephoto length, the more compromises have to be made in its design and manufacture. Generally speaking a 3x zoom will normally perform very well and the greater the zoom ratio, the less well it performs. There are some exceptions, including L series lenses, but unfortunately, the 28 - 135mm isn't one of them.

Having said that, much depends on what your wife will be using it for and what size it may be printed to. If you are not looking for large exhibition quality prints, then it may well be the best compromise for her, between quality and convenience.

Colin

[Trevoreast]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

I had this lens and I liked it. It seems to have its fair share of haters.

Partly influenced by these bad reports on the net, and partly because I wanted a new lens anyway, I got the 24-105 F4L to replace this 28-135. I found I missed the 135mm.

What made me chuckle recently, I was looking at some really amazing shots of stunning models lit with off camera canon flashguns. The photographer producing these wonderful pictures always seemed to shoot at 135mm. I’d say most people; inc myself assumed he was shooting with the legendary 135 F2 – turned out it was the 28-135 at 135mm. I will try to find the link.
Does this lens deserve all the bad comments about it, probably not? For around £300 your missus is going get a very reasonable lens, hours of enjoyment, and get some HQ pix.

If someone gave me this lens in good light, outdoors and told me to go ahead and snap a range of subjects from people, plants, zoo animals, to tamer bolder birds I wouldn’t feel too disadvantaged at all.

The 24-105 F4 is better built, and a bit better optically, It has the fixed F4 aperture, faster focus, it’s wider 24 V 28mm. Well loved solid performer. If you'd rather not spend the money the 28-135 is a decent enough compromise.

I don't know how it compares against the new crop of efs zooms, the 28-135 has been around a while - pre digital.

Trev

[jonesgj]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

Brian,

She already makes me carry all the other lenses and tripods! Please don't let me part with my 24-105!

Seriously though, she is just learning and enjoying accompanying me and has an aversion to swaping betweem the 15-85 to the tamron 70-300 (which has a macro setting too)

So I wanted to get her the best compromise lens I could. I had read mixed reviews about the 18-200s and wondered if the 28-135 might be better.

What camera and does she mean for closeups or nature?

Try her wiith your 24-105 and see if that meets the bill?

Brian

[jonesgj]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

If only she would occasionally swap to the 70-300!

:)

Graydon, Its not one of Canons better lenses, the 17-85mm IS is probably slightly better!

[jonesgj]

Re: Canon EF IS USM 28-135 mm F/3.5-5.6 Lens

Thanks for taking the time over this Trev,

Really useful.

Graydon

I had this lens and I liked it. It seems to have its fair share of haters.

Partly influenced by these bad reports on the net, and partly because I wanted a new lens anyway, I got the 24-105 F4L to replace this 28-135. I found I missed the 135mm.

What made me chuckle recently, I was looking at some really amazing shots of stunning models lit with off camera canon flashguns. The photographer producing these wonderful pictures always seemed to shoot at 135mm. I’d say most people; inc myself assumed he was shooting with the legendary 135 F2 – turned out it was the 28-135 at 135mm. I will try to find the link.
Does this lens deserve all the bad comments about it, probably not? For around £300 your missus is going get a very reasonable lens, hours of enjoyment, and get some HQ pix.

If someone gave me this lens in good light, outdoors and told me to go ahead and snap a range of subjects from people, plants, zoo animals, to tamer bolder birds I wouldn’t feel too disadvantaged at all.

The 24-105 F4 is better built, and a bit better optically, It has the fixed F4 aperture, faster focus, it’s wider 24 V 28mm. Well loved solid performer. If you'd rather not spend the money the 28-135 is a decent enough compromise.

I don't know how it compares against the new crop of efs zooms, the 28-135 has been around a while - pre digital.

Trev