Canon Image stabilizer Lens
Discussion
Have any of you used a canon image stabilizer lens before?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
r055 said:
Have any of you used a canon image stabilizer lens before?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
A lot of us on here do - I currently use the 70-200 2.8 IS L and the 100-400 IS L, though in the past have had and use the EF-S 17-85 IS and the very lens you link to, the 28-135 IS.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
Why do you ask? The 28-135 is an old and not a very good lens, poor build and rather soft, as well as having one of the earlier versions of IS on it. It is also a bit long on any of the crop cameras (300-450D and 20-50D) for use as a walkaround lens if that is what you are thinking.
Bee_Jay said:
LukeBird said:
Yep.
I have the 28-135mm you have linked to
Fantastic lens!
What body do you use it with, and what other lenses do you have?I have the 28-135mm you have linked to
Fantastic lens!
And I only have one other lens at present, just the 18-55.
Although I've used my dad's 70-300IS and 17-85IS regularly since buying my 40D a few months back
Just need to (finally!) sort out getting the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 I've been meaning to buy!
I've got it, alongside a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-300IS.
It's much better than the 18-55 kit lens, but isn't as sharp as the Tamron, nor does it open as wide despite having a substantially greater diameter. And IMHO it's not QUITE wide-angle enough to be a proper landscape lens. But in it's defence the extra length over most (good) landscape lenses makes it superb for a 'walkabout' lens.
It's much better than the 18-55 kit lens, but isn't as sharp as the Tamron, nor does it open as wide despite having a substantially greater diameter. And IMHO it's not QUITE wide-angle enough to be a proper landscape lens. But in it's defence the extra length over most (good) landscape lenses makes it superb for a 'walkabout' lens.
I thought about buying that lens, 28-135mm but read a few reviews and decided on the 24-105mm as my “walk about”. Its my very first with the image stabilise and it makes a hell of a difference IMHO. I posted a few pics here but didn’t get any feedback, possibly bought a pup?!? Perhaps someone can enlighten me / you?
Edited by paul911 on Wednesday 10th December 23:11
paul911 said:
I thought about buying that lens, 28-135mm but read a few reviews and decided on the 24-105mm as my “walk about”. Its my very first with the image stabilise and it makes a hell of a difference IMHO. I posted a few pics here but didn’t get any feedback, possibly bought a pup?!? Perhaps someone can enlighten me / you? Link: http://www.pistonheads.com/xforums/topic.asp?h=0&a...
I wouldn't take the lack of reaction as any sort of judgement on your lens For what it's worth (even thought the images are a bit on the small side) the lens looks fine.
As for the 28-135 and 24-105 comparison...well there isn't one. The extra cost for the 24-105 is well worth it IMHO.
Don't get me wrong chaps.
When I first got a 20D a while back someone (who at the time had a D60) lent me a 28-135 IS saying he never used it. TBH I had the 18-55 kit lens and the 75-300 at the time. Never really did use it and handed it back after a year as I never really found it wide enough for 'walkabout', and very soon after picked up the 17-85IS.
The 17-85 was perfect as a lightweight, compact lens. Also it is pretty much the 1.6 crop equivalent of the 28-135. The 28-135 is the equivalent of 72-216mm when put onto a 1.6 crop which is quite long for a 'walkabout'.
I have since progressed onto things like the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8 IS, which now I am back to full frame again are excellent.
If I was on a 1.6 crop still and looking for the ultimate small do everything lens, I wouldn't hesitate in buying the new 18-200 IS as that would be pretty handy for most situations. With the 28-135 I feel you will be changing lenses to the 18-55 quite a lot.
Then again, all depends what you are shooting...
When I first got a 20D a while back someone (who at the time had a D60) lent me a 28-135 IS saying he never used it. TBH I had the 18-55 kit lens and the 75-300 at the time. Never really did use it and handed it back after a year as I never really found it wide enough for 'walkabout', and very soon after picked up the 17-85IS.
The 17-85 was perfect as a lightweight, compact lens. Also it is pretty much the 1.6 crop equivalent of the 28-135. The 28-135 is the equivalent of 72-216mm when put onto a 1.6 crop which is quite long for a 'walkabout'.
I have since progressed onto things like the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8 IS, which now I am back to full frame again are excellent.
If I was on a 1.6 crop still and looking for the ultimate small do everything lens, I wouldn't hesitate in buying the new 18-200 IS as that would be pretty handy for most situations. With the 28-135 I feel you will be changing lenses to the 18-55 quite a lot.
Then again, all depends what you are shooting...
LukeBird said:
Bee_Jay said:
LukeBird said:
Yep.
I have the 28-135mm you have linked to
Fantastic lens!
What body do you use it with, and what other lenses do you have?I have the 28-135mm you have linked to
Fantastic lens!
And I only have one other lens at present, just the 18-55.
Although I've used my dad's 70-300IS and 17-85IS regularly since buying my 40D a few months back
Just need to (finally!) sort out getting the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 I've been meaning to buy!
r055 said:
Have any of you used a canon image stabilizer lens before?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
Yes, I have 3, they are great. What do you actually what to know?http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-EF-Zoom-lens-3-5-5-6...
Bee_Jay said:
LukeBird said:
A 40D.
And I only have one other lens at present, just the 18-55.
Although I've used my dad's 70-300IS and 17-85IS regularly since buying my 40D a few months back
Just need to (finally!) sort out getting the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 I've been meaning to buy!
The 50mm f/1.8 is an excellent stocking filler, and you will have an amazing amount of fun with it, discovering fast lenses and stupidly shallow DOF... I loved mine and only sold (for peanuts) it to upgrade to the 50mm f/1.4. The f/1.8 is a real hidden gem, incredibly cheap and very good.And I only have one other lens at present, just the 18-55.
Although I've used my dad's 70-300IS and 17-85IS regularly since buying my 40D a few months back
Just need to (finally!) sort out getting the 50mm f/1.8 and 70-200 f/4 I've been meaning to buy!
stigmundfreud said:
I have IS on my 24-105, it is never turned on. Waste of time as a feature. If you need 3 more stops just bump up the ISO. I'd rather the extra (little) noise than the bloody softness as a result of IS
There must be something wrong with your copy?? IS is a godsend on my copy and helped so much on so many occasions. It's far from 'waste of time as a feature'. For around the £200, there's been a few on eBay split from 40D kits, the 28-135 IS not a bad lens.
On a crop sensor it can be a bit long for a walk around but horses for courses I suppose!!
Review here:-
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
I think it works well for close up shots of flowers etc.
The most annoying thing for me is the zoom creeps if the lens is tilted from the horizontal.
I recently bought a second hand, as new, 70-200 F4 L (non IS) which gets more use to be honest as it's a fantastic bit of glass
On a crop sensor it can be a bit long for a walk around but horses for courses I suppose!!
Review here:-
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-E...
I think it works well for close up shots of flowers etc.
The most annoying thing for me is the zoom creeps if the lens is tilted from the horizontal.
I recently bought a second hand, as new, 70-200 F4 L (non IS) which gets more use to be honest as it's a fantastic bit of glass
I can't believe anyone could not notice the effect of IS. Tip here: never look at your LCD screen and think the image looks OK. I got pretty "annoyed" coming back from travelling and finding that so many of my shots were lost due to camera shake. And I have to add that I have a very steady hand compared to many.
After one trip of using a supposedly very versatile Nikon 28-200 G I decided to make sure every travel lens I would use would have IS or VR. It makes a colossal difference.
You can't always "pump up the ISO" to get a higher shutter speed: what if you're already at ISO 400? 3 stops would equal going to ISO 3200 which some cameras don't offer and, trust me on this one, despite all this blah blah blah about "noise free" images at high ISO, you will be able to see a difference in noise on pretty much any camera between ISO 200, 400, 800.....
BTW the poster above who said "I have noticed no difference with IS" and it's a "waste of time" is the ONLY poster I have ever seen on any forum who has that opinion. The only one, think about that.
BTW again: I can vouch for IS on the 24-105 as it enabled me to get shots at very low shutter speeds as the evening approached and I was still taking photos while everybody had given up. That's a considerable difference.
IS (or VR) won't guarantee to make all your shots sharp but it reduces the chance of lost shots due to camera shake (of static subjects, that is) or reduces the amount of camera shake to an acceptable level if it's the difference between getting the shot or not. You still need good technique and in any case should always make all attempts to be as still and stable as possible when photographing subjects.
The 28-135 IS is a good lens. I am just about to take some tests of it against the 24-105 and 24-70 to see what I prefer as a walkabout lens and maybe sell off one or both of the others.
IS on the 70-200 F4L IS elevates it to the king of usability and sharpness in many people's opinions.
Malc
After one trip of using a supposedly very versatile Nikon 28-200 G I decided to make sure every travel lens I would use would have IS or VR. It makes a colossal difference.
You can't always "pump up the ISO" to get a higher shutter speed: what if you're already at ISO 400? 3 stops would equal going to ISO 3200 which some cameras don't offer and, trust me on this one, despite all this blah blah blah about "noise free" images at high ISO, you will be able to see a difference in noise on pretty much any camera between ISO 200, 400, 800.....
BTW the poster above who said "I have noticed no difference with IS" and it's a "waste of time" is the ONLY poster I have ever seen on any forum who has that opinion. The only one, think about that.
BTW again: I can vouch for IS on the 24-105 as it enabled me to get shots at very low shutter speeds as the evening approached and I was still taking photos while everybody had given up. That's a considerable difference.
IS (or VR) won't guarantee to make all your shots sharp but it reduces the chance of lost shots due to camera shake (of static subjects, that is) or reduces the amount of camera shake to an acceptable level if it's the difference between getting the shot or not. You still need good technique and in any case should always make all attempts to be as still and stable as possible when photographing subjects.
The 28-135 IS is a good lens. I am just about to take some tests of it against the 24-105 and 24-70 to see what I prefer as a walkabout lens and maybe sell off one or both of the others.
IS on the 70-200 F4L IS elevates it to the king of usability and sharpness in many people's opinions.
Malc
Gemm said:
stigmundfreud said:
I have IS on my 24-105, it is never turned on. Waste of time as a feature. If you need 3 more stops just bump up the ISO. I'd rather the extra (little) noise than the bloody softness as a result of IS
There must be something wrong with your copy?? IS is a godsend on my copy and helped so much on so many occasions. It's far from 'waste of time as a feature'. It's unlikely that anyone who's spent any reasonable amount of money on Canon or Nikon lenses hasn't had IS/VR, to be honest. It's getting pretty ubiquitous.
For my part, I had the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4, both of which have IS and, as mentioned, it can be very handy.
One thing though, turn it off if you're using a tripod. Seems to confuse the hell out of it, being rock steady
For my part, I had the 24-105 f4 and the 70-200 f4, both of which have IS and, as mentioned, it can be very handy.
One thing though, turn it off if you're using a tripod. Seems to confuse the hell out of it, being rock steady
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff