EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

[fatsteve]

Anyone own one of these?

I'm looking at chopping in my Tamron 28-300 (f3.5-6.3) for one of these. I don't really need anything > 100mm since I have the 100-400L IS for that.

Price-wise it seems very reasonable (~£350). Obviously not the fastest lens in the world but as an all-purpose replacement for my 28-300, I think it fits the bill.

Any comments?

Steve

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

I use mine more than any other lense. It's the best 'walkabout' lense IMHO. Drop me an e-mail if you want some full size images with it (off a 10D).

[fatsteve]

Thanks Phil.

I'm trying to exercise some restraint this year and NOT upgrade the camera body, instead, I've said to myself that I'll upgrade all my lenses to high spec ones (hence no point in buying a decent body next year when I've only got cheap lenses).

So far the Sigma 170-500 has been chopped in for a 100-400L IS USM. The 18-55 kit lens will be upgraded to a 16-25L f2.8 (or a 17-40L f4 if I'm broke!!). That just leaves the mid-range zoom.

My only reservation is that it's not an L, but the only L lenses in that range are huge great bins, similar size to my 100-400. I want something fairly small and decrete that I can leave on the body 80-90% of the time.

I'm sure that whilst it's not an L lens, it's probably still much better than my Tamron 28-300, which I really like. Again, it's my main "walkabout" lens. The only negative thing about it is that it's a bit soft at the 300mm end.

Steve

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

The 28-135mm is the same sharpness throughout the range. Yup, it's not an L but it's ok made. Not 100-400IS made-of-angle-iron-and-gas-pipe strong but it can take a bit of a bashing. It's IS is one mode unlike the 100-400 but works about as well (unless you point it straight up, then all manner of oddness starts).

If I could only have one lense it'd probably be this one.

[trooperiziz]

yup, bought mine off ebay second hand for £230.

I like it...

www.nfletcher.plus.com/album/103_0303.JPG (warning, 2mb pic)

[ehasler]

fatsteve said:

The 18-55 kit lens will be upgraded to a 16-25L f2.8 (or a 17-40L f4 if I'm broke!!).

Personally, I'd go for (and indeed did go for) the 17-40 instead of the 16-35.

See here for a comparison of both.

As for the 28-135 - I've got one of these too, and it's a very good lens. Not the sharpest in the world, but it's a useful range, quite small and light and it also has IS which is very useful.

[fatsteve]

Thanks Guys,

Ed, that's interesting since the first thing I tend to do these days is jump on FredMiranda (ooerr!), LL or dpreview. The comments on FredMiranda seem fairly conclusive towards the 16-35 www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=2&sort=7&cat=27&page=1

The problem I have is the age old debate that I want the lens for landscape shots where max apperature is irrelevent, however you can stop down a f2.8 to f4 but not the other way round.

From a flexibility POV the 17-40 is much more versatile, however I need the wide-angle end more due to the infamous crop factor. Though I'm not sure that 1mm will make a huge difference.

My other alternative to the 16-35 or 17-40 is the Tamron SP AF17-35MM F/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical (IF)

Steve


>> Edited by fatsteve on Monday 28th February 14:19

>> Edited by fatsteve on Monday 28th February 14:19

[V6GTO]

This is the lens that is on my camera the most, same as Phil. Quality is not a problem.



Martin.

[Bee_Jay]

I have it and use it a lot, but I find on my 20D I was swapping it a bit for the nasty kit 18-55 to get the 18-28 range.

So, I looked at the L 16-35, 17-35, 24-70 etc, but none really had enough range for walkabout child chasing...

85-135 isn't really much of a zoom to lose, but you notice the 17-28 being missing!!!

So I am picking up a 17-85 EF-S nest week in the US and will give that a go. If I don't like it, no loss as I will be able to sell it on eBay over here for more than I pay for it in the US (getting it over the counter for £299!!!)

I'll put feedback on here in a couple of weeks as to how I get on...

[ThatPhilBrettGuy]

Nice shot MArtin. I must explorer the more interesting bits of Noble myself when it's less than freezing here.

[murph7355]

A good lens.

High time Canon did an L lens version of this I think, but this one's a good lens to have in the bag.

I'm probably going to get a 24-70L and 70-200L at some point, but have no doubt I'll miss the weight of the 28-135.

[V6GTO]

Another good thing about this lens is, while not Macro, it does get you pretty close. (Appologies for the camera shake )



Martin.

[stuh]

V6GTO said:

Another good thing about this lens is, while not Macro, it does get you pretty close. (Appologies for the camera shake ) Martin.

Effects of the Sangria last night?

[stuh]

Bee_Jay said:

I have it and use it a lot, but I find on my 20D I was swapping it a bit for the nasty kit 18-55 to get the 18-28 range. So, I looked at the L 16-35, 17-35, 24-70 etc, but none really had enough range for walkabout child chasing... 85-135 isn't really much of a zoom to lose, but you notice the 17-28 being missing!!! So I am picking up a 17-85 EF-S nest week in the US and will give that a go. If I don't like it, no loss as I will be able to sell it on eBay over here for more than I pay for it in the US (getting it over the counter for £299!!!) I'll put feedback on here in a couple of weeks as to how I get on...

I have exactly the same prob. The 28 just isn't quite wide enough sometimes. What i need is a 10-135L

£299 for the EF-S is fantastic! If it's as good as the EF-S 10-22 then i'd be very keen myself.

[V6GTO]

stuh said:

Effects of the Sangria last night?

I thought that was pretty good hand held at 135mm and 1/10th of a second! (No light, it's tipping down with rain here )

Martin.