Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS?


Status
Not open for further replies.
May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#1
I have a Canon 400D and am considering on getting the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Can anyone give me advise on this lens? Also, any other lens that I should be considering?

Thanks! :)
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#2
I have a Canon 400D and am considering on getting the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Can anyone give me advise on this lens? Also, any other lens that I should be considering?

Thanks! :)
Quite a good combo to start with. This lens is pretty sharp if you know how to use it. Good for landscapes and general photography, and with the IS, can achieve very good results.

I've got this lens before, but sold it after an upgrade after using it for about 5 years. :)
 

May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#3
Quite a good combo to start with. This lens is pretty sharp if you know how to use it. Good for landscapes and general photography, and with the IS, can achieve very good results.

I've got this lens before, but sold it after an upgrade after using it for about 5 years. :)
Any bad points about the lens?
Just out of curiousity, what lens did you get after selling this? :)
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#4
Any bad points about the lens?
Just out of curiousity, what lens did you get after selling this one? :)
For all lenses, there will always be good and bad, even for 'L' lenses. It depends on the person behind it. :bsmilie:

For the 28-135, the barrel and focusing ring gets loose after usage. It's not an issue with focusing, but it'll be good if it's tight IMO. Also, the pics are a bit soft taken with the tele end of the lens. Other that that, it's quite a work horse. If not, I won't have used it for 5 years!

After selling it ah...I got the 24-105 'L', because I upgraded my body to a full-frame.
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#5
I have a Canon 400D and am considering on getting the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens. Can anyone give me advise on this lens? Also, any other lens that I should be considering?

Thanks! :)
In the film days, one could get by with this lens because most of the results are 3R or 4R prints. Digital is a different story. This lens holds up poorly when pictures are viewed at 100% on a computer. It just doesn't cut it anymore. Unless you're getting a copy at a very good price, suggest you give it a miss. There are a lot of options for zooms in the midrange. Shop around a bit more.
 

May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#6
In the film days, one could get by with this lens because most of the results are 3R or 4R prints. Digital is a different story. This lens holds up poorly when pictures are viewed at 100% on a computer. It just doesn't cut it anymore. Unless you're getting a copy at a very good price, suggest you give it a miss. There are a lot of options for zooms in the midrange. Shop around a bit more.
Do you have any recommendation for me pls? :)
Thanks!
 

darr

Member
Mar 20, 2002
292
0
16
40
Hill View
www.ntu.edu.sg
#7
the 17-85 IS will serve you better... and the IS is far more advanced than this, though I still use the 28-135 on my film SLR.
 

May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#8
the 17-85 IS will serve you better... and the IS is far more advanced than this, though I still use the 28-135 on my film SLR.
This lens works better with a full frame camera since this is a EF-S lens, correct?
Can you explain why this is better as compared to the 28-135?

Thanks!
 

Prismatic

Senior Member
Feb 25, 2003
1,323
0
36
38
In the void.
Visit site
#9
This lens works better with a full frame camera since this is a EF-S lens, correct?
Can you explain why this is better as compared to the 28-135?

Thanks!
Ermm... the 17-85 can't be mounted on a full-frame camera without modification.
EF-S mounts are made for 1.6x crop cameras.
 

May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#10
oops... hehe.. ok .. arigato!...
So does anyone know the diff between 28-135 vs 17-85?
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#11
In the film days, one could get by with this lens because most of the results are 3R or 4R prints. Digital is a different story. This lens holds up poorly when pictures are viewed at 100% on a computer. It just doesn't cut it anymore. Unless you're getting a copy at a very good price, suggest you give it a miss. There are a lot of options for zooms in the midrange. Shop around a bit more.
Don't quite agree with you. Not very sure what you mean by 'holds up poorly'. Do you mean sharpness? Colours? Or what? I include here a couple of examples which may prove you wrong. It was taken using the 28-135 with 10D many years back.

Landscape #1



Landscape #2



Portrait #1
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,691
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#12
Digital is a different story. This lens holds up poorly when pictures are viewed at 100% on a computer.
That's the problem with people now. What's the point of viewing it at 100% when in actual fact, you would be getting anything useful out of it?
 

adept1

New Member
Apr 5, 2008
68
0
0
#13
I have this lens and to me, honestly, the range is not extremely useful to me. Not wide enough on one end, and not long enough on the other. It's optically ok though in my opinion. I recently got the EFS 17-55 (LOVE IT!), and for a long zoom I'd rather have something like 100-300mm or maybe even the new 50-250 (although I'm not convinced of the IQ yet).

PM me if you're interested to buy my 28-135mm IS. It's in 10/10 condition.
 

AsPiRiN92

New Member
Mar 13, 2007
122
0
0
Toa Payoh
#14
i've been using a 2nd hand 17-85 that's about 3 years old now...quite happy with the lens :) its wide enough for mass group shots (although there are some visible distortion), and also saves time switching to my 75-300 at times when i need a "mid-range"
 

ST1100

Senior Member
Jun 18, 2003
1,785
0
0
Singapore, Bedok
#15
Don't quite agree with you. Not very sure what you mean by 'holds up poorly'. Do you mean sharpness? Colours? Or what? I include here a couple of examples which may prove you wrong. It was taken using the 28-135 with 10D many years back.
The 10D is 6mpix. The pics posted here are 800x533, or abt 400kb, viewed on my screen (and most other ppl's screens) it's about 4R. Which was my point, it looked ok/great around that size, after some decent PP.

i've personally put my 28-135IS through hundreds of rolls of film a year back in the film days, and i was happy with it too, then. i even thought my copy was faulty and bought a second one, but sold it off soon, coz i felt it just quite wasn't there. But hey, if you're happy with your copy, that's fine too; gives the TS two vantage points, someone happy with the lens and someone not too satisfied with it.

But the part about the wobbly front barrel (and zoom creep) is definitely true.
 

May 8, 2008
38
0
0
#16
The 10D is 6mpix. The pics posted here are 800x533, or abt 400kb, viewed on my screen (and most other ppl's screens) it's about 4R. Which was my point, it looked ok/great around that size, after some decent PP.

i've personally put my 28-135IS through hundreds of rolls of film a year back in the film days, and i was happy with it too, then. i even thought my copy was faulty and bought a second one, but sold it off soon, coz i felt it just quite wasn't there. But hey, if you're happy with your copy, that's fine too; gives the TS two vantage points, someone happy with the lens and someone not too satisfied with it.

But the part about the wobbly front barrel (and zoom creep) is definitely true.
So what would you suggest .... if not the 28-135? :)
 

jimbok

Senior Member
Nov 6, 2005
605
0
16
Sengkang
#17
If your a wide angle kind of person, 28mm will not be enough for you. If I were to have the choice, I would go for 17-85mm.
I remember struggling to take a family portrait of about 20+ people in an HDB Living room.
 

Virgo

Senior Member
Dec 23, 2003
4,816
0
0
West of Singapore
www.pbase.com
#18
Bro, even with full size, it's still ok. I'm not posting it full size because of obvious reasons. What I'm trying to drive is that the colurs and sharpness is OK to me, and many others too.

The 17-85 IS is an EF-S mount lens, which is only mountable for some bodies. For me, it's definitely a no-go. I'm not saying it's no good, but I'm definitely not going for EF-S lenses as my body cannot support this type of mount.

The 10D is 6mpix. The pics posted here are 800x533, or abt 400kb, viewed on my screen (and most other ppl's screens) it's about 4R. Which was my point, it looked ok/great around that size, after some decent PP.

i've personally put my 28-135IS through hundreds of rolls of film a year back in the film days, and i was happy with it too, then. i even thought my copy was faulty and bought a second one, but sold it off soon, coz i felt it just quite wasn't there. But hey, if you're happy with your copy, that's fine too; gives the TS two vantage points, someone happy with the lens and someone not too satisfied with it.

But the part about the wobbly front barrel (and zoom creep) is definitely true.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom