Canon EF28-135mm IS USM $870, GoodBuy?

[mpenza]

nice pic. but how about potrait shot on people. my main concern is to get a sharp image on people. my EF 18-55mm can't give a sharp image in low light shooting. (ie, warm light in hotel room)

if a lens can produce sharp images under bright light, it'll produce similarly sharp pics under low light. The "unsharpness" is probably due to slow shutter speed which results in camera shake and affecting sharpness of the photo. You'll get the same results with any lens if the shutter speed is too slow and you don't have proper support.

 

[nightpiper]

i dun know why so many people r praising the Tamron 24-135mm SP. i own it b4 & find that its not sharp at all. i print 8x12 & the sharpness fail so miserably (even at F8). colour wise, not good at all. my old Tokina 28-70 is really great, beats the Tamron hands down in terms of colour, contrast & sharpness.

i find it strange, Tamron SP series shud be very good but this 24-135 is juz way off the SP scale. anyway, sold mine away & bot an original nikon 28-105. very stunning & sharp, now my defacto lens.

dun buy lens thats juz sharp, u also need to consider how it handles colour & contrast, distortion (Tamron 24 -135 is quite distorted at wide), features, support, etc.

have fun hunting around!

 

[Terence]

Even more fun with the Tamron!

http://www.pbase.com/image/23874108
http://www.pbase.com/image/23874115

 

[timpoh]

thanks to all of you expert.

what lens is good if i want to shoot on people or animals ? cos' i will be going to zoo next week.

 

[goering]

My answers...

a) Have tried two different 28-135 IS. Results are similar. Or maybe you might ask if both of them were lemons.

b) I don't understand the point you're trying to make with this remark. I've already stated in several other posts that you've read that my opinions of this lens are merely my own and that the final test really lies with the person who is going to use it. I fully encourage everyone to try the lenses out for themselves and to use the reviews as a guide.

Thanks .. for Point b) what i meant was this:

Postive reviews, good user comments and good ratings from sites like photodo could be very different from what you actually experience. This is probably what happened in your case - that despite many good reviews and comments (and therefore presumably the reason for your purchase of this lens), your own tests show otherwise

The same thing happened to me in my purchase of my 24mm lens where I did not find the lens to be as sharp as the positive ratings and user comments have indicated. I bought this lens on the strength of the reviews and comments from users

And my point is that positive user reviews and comments should be taken with caution. As for your negative review of the 28-135mm, I have noted your test results and valued it. It might also save me some disappointment later if I purchase it - since the reviews I have come across were generally positive

 

[GitS]

not sure why so many pple are slamming the canon lens, i have one and can testify to its sharpness....with countless rolls shot through them...and with the IS, i have not gotten a blurred shot unless i was really trying to push it.

i'm sure there are lemons out there but this doesn't mean optically its a piece of crap. i had a sigma 20mm 1.8 some time back and the lens had rave reviews all over...but my specimen was a piece of crap, could shoot a sharp pic to save my life, got rid of it in disgust ....does that mean that all the sigma 20 1.8s are crap? you be the judge...

i wonder if people are just feeling smug about this "i paid less and got a better lens" feeling...

 

[Terence]

i wonder if people are just feeling smug about this "i paid less and got a better lens" feeling...

Listen you... I mentioned in my other posts that my review of the lens were merely my own opinions and I encourage everyone to try it out before they make final judgement.

You don't have to be a Git just because your nick is GitS. Whose feeling smug about anything? I'd be quite happy to keep the Canon if it worked well with my shooting style. I'm only elated because I found a good product in the Tamron and I'm only sharing my experience with others who are looking for a cheaper alternative to the Canon. Check my profile... I own other Canon lenses myself and I've been praising them because they work great. Just because you think your 28-135 IS is the best thing next to sliced bread, you don't have to slam others who don't think that Canon lens is up to the mark. Have you even tried other alternatives? Git...

 

[taneks]

if a lens can produce sharp images under bright light, it'll produce similarly sharp pics under low light. The "unsharpness" is probably due to slow shutter speed which results in camera shake and affecting sharpness of the photo. You'll get the same results with any lens if the shutter speed is too slow and you don't have proper support.

Agreed....however, the Image Stabilizer in the Canon 28-135 IS helps to correct camera shake. After using this lens, it is now my favourite lens and is more or less permanently on my camera. I am happier with my pictures overall, as they look sharper, especially for handheld shots.

Am attaching a link to a photo showing a picture taken handheld for 0.5 seconds using IS at night with tungsten bulb. Without IS, I was not able to achieve anything even close. Overall, IS would help you achieve better shots at a lower speed.....that's all.

http://www.pbase.com/taneks/test

hope this helps....steven

 

[mpenza]

I have no doubt that IS is definitely useful for capturing still objects under low light

However, is a slow lens with IS better for capturing moving objects compared to a faster lens without IS (or slow lens with flash) under low light? Reason I'm asking is because subject movement will require a fast shutter speed to freeze motion. IS could stabilise camera shake but not freeze subject movement.

 

[Terence]

I find the IS more useful on my 100-400L IS telephoto at full zoom rather than using it on a short lens in a low light situation. I'd normally be using a tripod for shots like that. I need to clarify that this is MY shooting style... been getting a lot of flame posts and PM about why I'm pushing the Tamron over the Canon.

I have no doubt the IS works great with the lens handheld at slow shutter speeds, I have seen the results of such shots and they look pretty good.

 

[GitS]

Listen you... I mentioned in my other posts that my review of the lens were merely my own opinions and I encourage everyone to try it out before they make final judgement.

You don't have to be a Git just because your nick is GitS. Whose feeling smug about anything? I'd be quite happy to keep the Canon if it worked well with my shooting style. I'm only elated because I found a good product in the Tamron and I'm only sharing my experience with others who are looking for a cheaper alternative to the Canon. Check my profile... I own other Canon lenses myself and I've been praising them because they work great. Just because you think your 28-135 IS is the best thing next to sliced bread, you don't have to slam others who don't think that Canon lens is up to the mark. Have you even tried other alternatives? Git...

you poor self conscious boy, sorry if you think i was refering to you but i was referring to some negative posts in photograpyreview.com as well as a preponderence of good ones..and just wondering about this reverse dicrimination thing....

no, i dun think the 28-135 IS is the next best thing to sliced bread, the 400mm DO IS is. And yes, i have tried alternatives including old manual focus sigmas more 10 years ago and i loved them. so dun presuppose what i have/have not tried as you have absolutly NO IDEA what I have used in the past.

 

[timpoh]

thanks to all your feedback on this len.

just wonder , is anyone bought this len < than $870 (cash) ? and do i really need to go for a external flash with i buy this baby ??

regards,

 

[RCheah]

This discussion is getting a bit pointless. Don't care if it's Canon, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina, as long as can take good pics, it's a good lens! :cheers: This kind of discussions will crop up every now and then in this forum, no point getting worked up over others' comments, or taking anything personally.

With every lens, it'll have its strengths and weaknesses. The important thing is to know your lens and eqpt well enough to aid you in getting good (not neccessarily sharp) photos. I guess what I'm trying to say is let's not get too concerned about the "technical" aspect of a lens, a lens should be judged by how well it helps you to capture a photo.

I've used the 28-135 IS on a few occasion. I won't say it produces the sharpest pics, but I'll say it's one of the most versatile/useful lens to have. It covers a wide range, has Ultrasonic (super-fast and quiet AF), Image Stabilizer, and produces very decent pictures. Enough reasons for some to pay a premium for this lens.

The following are samples of shots I've taken with this lens. No resize, no sharpening, shot at wide open.
http://photos.graciousgift.com/2003christmas/IMG_8670
http://photos.graciousgift.com/2003christmas/CRW_8697