Canon EF canon 28-135 IS?

Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the 300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF 28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

JMac, if you want general information about Canon-specific lenses, I suggest
you find the Canon digital photography news forum:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

Lurk around there, or register and post your own question.

---Bob Gross---

Jim,

The 28-135 IS lens is a very decent lens, especially for the money. It is
really up to you to decide if you are serious enough about your photography
to want a top-notch lens, such as the 28-70/L.


--
Judit Fabian
University of Vermont
(802)656-9722

The image quality of the 28-135 is very good for a non "L" lens. It is
actually better than my 17-40/4 L in the 28 to 40 mm part of the zoom range.
The 17-40 is sharper at the shorter focal lengths. For general travel
photography with a D60 I find that the combination of the 17-40 and 28-135
is very useful and compact enough to be carried in a small bag.

However, I do not find that this combination gives me enough telephoto range
for wildlife photos. If I am doing nature photography where there is likely
to be wildlife and I can carry the weight I usually combine the Canon 17-40
with a Sigma 50-500.

Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/

"JMac" wrote in message
...
Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the
300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF
28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

Thanks for everyone input.

I'm thinking of saving my money and waiting for a 24-70 L.

I know it would meet all my needs and I'd be happier in the long run.

"JMac" wrote in message
...
Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the
300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF
28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

The 28-135 IS lens is a very sharp lens. The IS is superb. Many of the 35mm/10D
landscape images on my website were taken with this lens (e.g. click on the new
link and look at the Colorado fall color images). It appears you do not have
an IS lens. If you do any imaging where you can't use a tripod, it is a real
plus to have IS. Examples: from boats, cars, horseback, in museums, churches.
Try doing a stained glass window in a dark church, hand held 1/8 second
on fuji velvia: it works with IS! Is the 24-70 L an IS lens? If not
I wouldn't touch it. From now on, I'll pretty much only buy IS lenses.
But I still use a tripod whenever possible. With longer lenses, like the
500 f/4 and 500 f/4+TC, I use IS even on the tripod.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

JMac wrote:

Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the 300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF 28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

No the 24-70L is not an IS lens, but it is an L lens and just that is for
sure an added plus.

I have both and I can tell you that the 24-70L is by far the sharpest lens.
But the 28-135 is surely the sharpest non L lens available.

From what I've experienced so far IS is good only higher than 200mm, under
that it's not so usefull.

Andre

"Roger N. Clark" wrote in
message _rnclark...
The 28-135 IS lens is a very sharp lens. The IS is superb. Many of the
35mm/10D
landscape images on my website were taken with this lens (e.g. click on
the new
link and look at the Colorado fall color images). It appears you do not
have
an IS lens. If you do any imaging where you can't use a tripod, it is a
real
plus to have IS. Examples: from boats, cars, horseback, in museums,
churches.
Try doing a stained glass window in a dark church, hand held 1/8 second
on fuji velvia: it works with IS! Is the 24-70 L an IS lens? If not
I wouldn't touch it. From now on, I'll pretty much only buy IS lenses.
But I still use a tripod whenever possible. With longer lenses, like the
500 f/4 and 500 f/4+TC, I use IS even on the tripod.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

JMac wrote:

Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the
300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should
I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF
28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

I have to agree with the 28-135 being a damned sharp lens. Compared
sibe-by side with a 28-70L, I ended up going home with the 28-135.
Granted, the L was a little sharper at the 28-40ish range, but for the
rest of the range, that little 28-135 was magic.

IS at 135 I think is incredably useful. I was recently in Europe for
about 10 days, and I can honestly say that a good 1/4 of the shots I
took would have been scrap if not for IS (they're not show quality,
but they're plenty acceptable for the family photo album). True, a
tripod is the way to go, but on a busy street in Basel, the tripod
just isn't an option.

Either way, I don't think you'll be disappointed.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 16:33:09 -0400, "Andre Beaulieu"
wrote:

No the 24-70L is not an IS lens, but it is an L lens and just that is for
sure an added plus.

I have both and I can tell you that the 24-70L is by far the sharpest lens.
But the 28-135 is surely the sharpest non L lens available.

From what I've experienced so far IS is good only higher than 200mm, under
that it's not so usefull.

Andre

"Roger N. Clark" wrote in
message _rnclark...
The 28-135 IS lens is a very sharp lens. The IS is superb. Many of the
35mm/10D
landscape images on my website were taken with this lens (e.g. click on
the new
link and look at the Colorado fall color images). It appears you do not
have
an IS lens. If you do any imaging where you can't use a tripod, it is a
real
plus to have IS. Examples: from boats, cars, horseback, in museums,
churches.
Try doing a stained glass window in a dark church, hand held 1/8 second
on fuji velvia: it works with IS! Is the 24-70 L an IS lens? If not
I wouldn't touch it. From now on, I'll pretty much only buy IS lenses.
But I still use a tripod whenever possible. With longer lenses, like the
500 f/4 and 500 f/4+TC, I use IS even on the tripod.

Roger
http://www.clarkvision.com

JMac wrote:

Sorry but this is a very general question.

I'd like to know the groups thinking on this lens.

I'm in need of a better zoom for my canon rebel, soon to be adding the
300d
or a 10d.

It is a little slower than I'd like but the price is attractive. Should
I
save my money (lots of $$) for the faster, 28-70?

I currently own a 24 f/2.8, 100 macro, 300 f/4L and just sold my EF
28-90mm
f/4-5.6

Is there a different lens and or manufacture I should consider

I prefer landscape photography but do a little of everything.

Your thought, ideas and suggestions are welcome.

-Jim

Andre Beaulieu wrote:

No the 24-70L is not an IS lens, but it is an L lens and just that is for
sure an added plus.

I have both and I can tell you that the 24-70L is by far the sharpest lens.
But the 28-135 is surely the sharpest non L lens available.

From what I've experienced so far IS is good only higher than 200mm, under
that it's not so usefull.


I disagree that just because its an L lens is an
added plus. That certainly is not the case with the
100-400 L IS. It is well documented by many users,
including pros that it is just not as sharp as it should
be.

I've had a lot of experience with IS, including from boats,
planes, in dimly lit churches in Europe, night scenes, and
the IS is quite useful all the way down to 28mm. Before
I bought the 28-135 lens, I did not believe that IS was
needed on such a short lens. I was wrong.

Roger

"Andre Beaulieu" wrote in message
...
No the 24-70L is not an IS lens, but it is an L lens and just that is for
sure an added plus.

I have both and I can tell you that the 24-70L is by far the sharpest
lens.
But the 28-135 is surely the sharpest non L lens available.

Sharper even than the 50mm f/1.8 (AKA the plastic fantastic) ?

--
The next new technology from Microsoft . . . . . .
NNBTGNDHI: Not Necessary, But The Guy Next Door Has It