My new lens

[AlbertSiegel]

I was given a $320USD Best Buy gift card for about $150 so I used that plus some cash to buy the Canon 28-135mm IS lens. It's not bad at all for a $500 lens. Fairly sharp pictures and good color. I was unsure, but since I have about two weeks left in the US and there is nothing I was interested in at Best Buy, I decided to buy this.

What do you guys think of this lens? You guys think it's a keeper? I currently have a 17-40L, 70-200L, and a 50 1.4 USM. Makes a good walk around lens and the IS is interesting. Should I keep it, or get a refund?

[Charles]

It's got fairly good reviews, for a consumer-grade lens. Like this:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/

Here is a comparison to a pro lens of roughly the same focal lengths.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

The thing I immediately notice is in the trees against the sky in the last shots on this page, the 28-135 shows substantially more chromatic aberration (purple fringing) and lens flare than the pro grade lens that costs like $1250. You get what you pay for.

[AlbertSiegel]

Does not look like a bad lens, the 24-105L looks nice though I am not sure if I am willing to spend the extra 600-800$ it would cost me over this one to get it. The 28-135 IS should be nearly as good with a little photoshop. It would be a great walk around lens for everyday photos. For work I will just need to stick with my "L" lenses though I must admit I like the way people look with the 28-135.... I may just keep this one...

[Charles]

No amount of photoshop is going to eliminate that chromatic aberration and lens flare, but it depends on what kind of shooting you're doing, most people don't shoot pics that make this a big problem. It's one of my pet peeves though, since my cheapo digital camera has these problems to an annoying degree.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lens makes people look good. My photo professors used to always say to shoot portraits with a slight telephoto (like an 80mm equivalent instead of a 50mm) as it gave a better look.

Anyway, google around for a few reviews and make your own decision, it's certainly going to be better than a Tamron or other low end products, and not as good as expensive pro products. But then you already knew that.

[omae mona]

Albert - I forgot what camera body you ended up buying. Is it one of the newer models (20D or either Rebel) that can take EF-S lenses?

I've heard some people consider 28-135 to be a little too long to be a walkaround lens once you put it on a 1.6x crop sensor like most dSLRs. Your field of view is equivalent to a 45-216mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera.

That's one of the main reasons Canon released the EF-S 17-85 IS lens. In front of a 1.6x crop sensor, It's just about equivalent to the 28-135 on a full-frame body. I've been thrilled with mine. The minimal chromatic aberration I get is easily fixed in Adobe Camera Raw (but yes, I'd prefer an L lens that had better optics to begin with!!). There's a lot of barrel distortion on the wide end, but I haven't heard that that's any better in the 28-135 lens.

You might want to think about it, if it fits on your camera. 17mm is a lot wider than 28. But like everybody said, I've also heard the 28-135 is a great lens, if it fits your needs.

[FG Lurker]

A pro-friend of mine recently bought the 24-105 F4L IS and is very much in love with it. He had the 28-135 as a film walk-around lens and sold it immediately [edit: after getting the 24-105]. He liked the 28-135 but it was clear that it didn't really compare well with his other L zooms or any primes.

If I had $500 to spend on a lens right now it would be a Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX I think. A very different lens to the 28-135, and quite likely not at all what you are looking for...

Also as you don't have a true wide-angle right now you might want to consider one of the 10-22 or 12-24 wide zooms. I bought the Canon a few months ago and love it. If you have a 10D you might want to look at the Sigma 10 or Tokina 12, both of which are good. I think the Tamron is good too.

[AlbertSiegel]

Yeah, the 20-135 does have some CA on the edges, but I can live with it. It only really shows sometimes. I was impressed with the sharpness on my lens at F4. It is fairly soft at f3.5 but no worry as long as I keep it at f4 and above. It is very lose to my 17-40L at F8 and not too far behind at F4. I guess I must have a sharp copy. I knew it was a good idea to get the box with a few dents on it!

I have never used a lens with IS built in. It is quite nice, but a bit loud. Should the IS on the 28-135 make a noise when you have it on?

I know 28-135 on my 10D is not the best for a wide zoom, but that's what I have my 17-40 for. I will take a few more test shots today and decide what to do with the lens. It may go back to the store. If so, I will just buy the 24-105L in Japan.

As for true wide, I cannot use EF-S lenes nor do I really care to have one. I would reather have a full-frame lens in the event that I use my lens on a film body. I have not had the need for a ultra-wide lens yet, but I have looked into it. How do you feel about Sigma or Tokina lenses?

[omae mona]

I would reather have a full-frame lens in the event that I use my lens on a film body.

That's a good one!! Going back to film!!

But seriously, even if you did have an EF-S mount camera now, you have a good point for the much more likely case that your next body were one of the full-frame digitals that won't take EF-S mount lenses. (But bear in mind: EF-S succeeds in what it set out to do: results in smaller and lighter lenses than the equivalent EF lenses.)

[FG Lurker]

Yeah, the 20-135 does have some CA on the edges, but I can live with it. It only really shows sometimes. I was impressed with the sharpness on my lens at F4. It is fairly soft at f3.5 but no worry as long as I keep it at f4 and above. It is very lose to my 17-40L at F8 and not too far behind at F4. I guess I must have a sharp copy. I knew it was a good idea to get the box with a few dents on it!

Once you get down to F8 a lot of any lens' problems and quirks will disappear. L glass is better than consumer class for a couple of reasons, one of which is often better colour rendition, and another is that they are usually still sharp (enough) wide open. (Then you get things like weather sealing etc on the newer ones.)

I have never used a lens with IS built in. It is quite nice, but a bit loud. Should the IS on the 28-135 make a noise when you have it on?

It does make sound, and some people talk of being able to feel it move around. If it is really noisy then there might be something wrong though.

As for true wide, I cannot use EF-S lenes nor do I really care to have one.

I felt the same way, but needed a much wider lens than the 17-40 for interior photos of the new house. There wasn't much choice really. Either the full frame Sigma 12-24 or one of the 1.6x lenses from Sigma, Tokina, Tamron, or Canon. I chose the Canon because it was the best and the 20D can take EF-S. There are various reviews around of the other 1.6x lenses. I think the Tokina is regarded as about the best though, and it isn't too much money.

I would reather have a full-frame lens in the event that I use my lens on a film body.

I doubt I will ever go back to 35mm film. I might at some point try medium format film though... The point stands though when you see that Canon is moving towards full frame. But a 10 to 12mm lens on a FF body is wider than most people would find useful anyway...

[AlbertSiegel]

I have been testing my 28-135 and I quite impressed with this one. I have owned a few non-"L" lenses and they were not very good at all. The 28-135 I have in so darn sharp for what it is. It is so very near the quality of my 17-40L and not too far behind my 50mm 1.4 prime. Sharpness is nearly the same between my other zooms (17-40 and 70-200) and color is the same as the 17-40. My 50mm 1.4 by far has the best color though the 70-200 is not far behind. All the lenses other than the prime have nearly the same sharpness at F4. I lucked out and ended up with a perfect 28-135. I think I will keep it.

As for ultra wide, I will look into it. Can you recommend a lens? I really care about sharpness. Could you tell me about the Tokina you reccomend?