Lens for the D60
- Thread starter Dennis
- Start date
- Status
same here. love my 28-135 for the IS. really make tripodless travel photography shiok 
can take landscape pics at higher f stop easily !
can take landscape pics at higher f stop easily !
The 28-135 is an ideal lens for travel however, with the 1.6 multiplier, it wouldn't be that wide anymore at the wide end. You like wide angles right? Something to consider seriously.
since u like wide angle zooms, and especially so since u will be using a D60, u should check out the Sigma 20-40 f2.8
It will give u the equivalent of about 32 to 64mm at f2.8, which is a pretty good range for travel landscape photography.
with a D60's multiplier, a 28mm end on any zoom is not going to satisfy any wide angle buff.
true that the 28mm of the 28-135 IS is not wide enuff with the 1.6 multiplier effect. Will have to complement with my 19-35mm Soligor lens but the problem is I dunno whether is it compatible with the D60 body ? anybody any idea ?
Hi BlueStrike
Sure, I can lend u the lens for a week and u can then return me the favour by lending me the D60 Deal ? I can also lend u all the other lenses that I have
Sure, I can lend u the lens for a week and u can then return me the favour by lending me the D60
Deal ? I can also lend u all the other lenses that I have I think Bluestrike was just joking right, from his tone? :bsmilie: Wow, lending the D60... that's a precious baby!
The 28-135 is a very versatile all-in-one lens. Sharpness is good for a zoom of such wide range. But I don't use it for several reasons:
1. The 28mm distortion is quite critical, especially if you do close-ups at this focal length.
2. The max f/5.6 aperture is hardly impressive at all. With an f/2.8 lens, I can handle the same 2 stops of exposure that the IS can give on the 28-135. Moreover, you can't freeze motion or have nice background blur at a relatively slow f/5.6.
3. The IS saps battery power! No joke. There's a tendency you'll leave it on even when u don't really need it.
Other than these, the focal length range is so broad that ever since I got the 70-200, I find it pretty pointless to carry the 28-135 as there is a huge overlap of the 70-135 part. Moreover with my L, I can get sharper images, less distortion, and above all, fast aperture.
Well to be fair, if there is only 1 zoom lens that I must carry and nothing else, then it's the 28-135. It's a good all-rounder as I said above.
The 28-135 is a very versatile all-in-one lens. Sharpness is good for a zoom of such wide range. But I don't use it for several reasons:
1. The 28mm distortion is quite critical, especially if you do close-ups at this focal length.
2. The max f/5.6 aperture is hardly impressive at all. With an f/2.8 lens, I can handle the same 2 stops of exposure that the IS can give on the 28-135. Moreover, you can't freeze motion or have nice background blur at a relatively slow f/5.6.
3. The IS saps battery power! No joke. There's a tendency you'll leave it on even when u don't really need it.
Other than these, the focal length range is so broad that ever since I got the 70-200, I find it pretty pointless to carry the 28-135 as there is a huge overlap of the 70-135 part. Moreover with my L, I can get sharper images, less distortion, and above all, fast aperture.
Well to be fair, if there is only 1 zoom lens that I must carry and nothing else, then it's the 28-135. It's a good all-rounder as I said above.
Well, true that the 2.8 lens can handle low light as well as the IS lens but it's at the expense of DOF. Sometimes , we are not going for backgrd blur or freezing of motion but rather increased DOF e.g hand held landscape photography .
Also weight is another problem with fast lens, something that is worth considering esp when doing back packing n stuff.
As for increased power consumption, I dun find much diff betwn IS lens and non IS lens. I recall shooting more than 10 rolls just using AA alkaline batteries under wintry conditions .
Whether a lens is useful or not depend therefore on wat the user is looking for
Also weight is another problem with fast lens, something that is worth considering esp when doing back packing n stuff.
As for increased power consumption, I dun find much diff betwn IS lens and non IS lens. I recall shooting more than 10 rolls just using AA alkaline batteries under wintry conditions .
Whether a lens is useful or not depend therefore on wat the user is looking for
There are VERY, VERY few applications whereby an aperture of f5.6 will succeed where an aperture of f2.8 would fail. If anything, this is a good reason FOR a f2.8 optic because it allows you to generate selective focus whereas it's very difficult to do so with a f5.6 optic.
I really do not know what to say to hand held landscape photography. Except that even Canon probably didn't intend this otherwise there would be IS on their wide angles.
There are other issues. You get half the flash range with a f5.6 lens as opposed to an f2.8 lens. Your viewfinder is four times as dim with an f5.6 lens as an f2.8 lens. So while yes you do lose out in terms of cost and weight, there are a whole series of other factors in favour of the 2.8 optic too.
Also weight is another problem with fast lens, something that is worth considering esp when doing back packing n stuff.
Oh yes, weight I certainly concede. But if mobility were the overriding factor then I'd quite honestly consider a 28-200 or 28-300 class zoom. And I'd buy a light body too. Certainly not an EOS3 or something with a "1" in it. Particularly for hand held landscape photography, do you really need anything better?
I find it particularly hypocritical, perhaps not in your case, but in general, that there are lots of people who complain about the weight of a professional camera body, yet given half a chance they'd own one in a flash.
Whether a lens is useful or not depend therefore on wat the user is looking for
Agreed.
True, and I agree on what you've said. If you're going on a trip with very light gear, the 28-135 is a good choice.
For me, slowly, I've learnt to adapt to carrying heavier equipment. You want excellent results, you got to get used to carrying heavier equipment. It's no big deal for me these days. Not that I'm a big frame guy. Just a matter of getting used to it. A person who's used to carrying a compact camera will think nothing about bringing an SLR camera, let alone the 28-135. It's all relative how heavy is heavy.
For serious landscape scenes, a MF is the way to go. But where SLR is concerned, and I want great DOF, I demand something like f/11 and smaller. If lighting conditions are low, you can't cheat even with IS. You have to get that tripod always ready at hand.
In fact, sometimes, we get too carried away with IS that we think we can handhold it as low as 1/8 s. Yes you may push it to that limits. But if possible, I always want the best possible standard and that means setting up my tripod and go f/16, below 1 sec. With IS, it gives you that false sense of security and you may not stop down your aperture or expose your film longer than you possibly can with a tripod.
These days, I find I need that f/2.8 to stop action. A shallow DOF is almost always important for me as I like to isolate my subjects to make them stand out. Bokeh is important too. At f/5.6 and sometimes even at f/4, for a focal length of 70mm to 135mm of the 28-135, you may find the background blur to be insufficient.
As for IS, it is true that it saps a lot more battery power. You got to shoot more than 10 rolls to realize that. It's not so bad that the battery will die after 10 rolls of usage. I'm not saying this is a big disadvantage, but merely stating it as a fact. For pros who shoot a lot, they'll probably feel it more than amateurs.
For me, slowly, I've learnt to adapt to carrying heavier equipment. You want excellent results, you got to get used to carrying heavier equipment. It's no big deal for me these days. Not that I'm a big frame guy. Just a matter of getting used to it. A person who's used to carrying a compact camera will think nothing about bringing an SLR camera, let alone the 28-135. It's all relative how heavy is heavy.
For serious landscape scenes, a MF is the way to go. But where SLR is concerned, and I want great DOF, I demand something like f/11 and smaller. If lighting conditions are low, you can't cheat even with IS. You have to get that tripod always ready at hand.
In fact, sometimes, we get too carried away with IS that we think we can handhold it as low as 1/8 s. Yes you may push it to that limits. But if possible, I always want the best possible standard and that means setting up my tripod and go f/16, below 1 sec. With IS, it gives you that false sense of security and you may not stop down your aperture or expose your film longer than you possibly can with a tripod.
These days, I find I need that f/2.8 to stop action. A shallow DOF is almost always important for me as I like to isolate my subjects to make them stand out. Bokeh is important too. At f/5.6 and sometimes even at f/4, for a focal length of 70mm to 135mm of the 28-135, you may find the background blur to be insufficient.
As for IS, it is true that it saps a lot more battery power. You got to shoot more than 10 rolls to realize that. It's not so bad that the battery will die after 10 rolls of usage. I'm not saying this is a big disadvantage, but merely stating it as a fact. For pros who shoot a lot, they'll probably feel it more than amateurs.
Opps, the above is my reply to Victor. Yes, Jed reiterated my sentiments about hand-holding for landscape photography.
Would like to add here that the 28-135 is favored by amateurs and pros. Amateurs bcos they don't own the bigger and heavier (more ex also!) L lenses, or faster primes but need one zoom lens that 'does it all'.
And, I've read at least 2 pros who use this lens as a backup. Of course, not that they can't afford other bigger lenses. But on certain days, when you gotta go into mud and water, or you need to have that sudden impromptu shot, the 28-135 is handy to shoot with.
But for some, like me, who own primes or tele zooms, this lens' focal length covers a large part and I can't justify its usage over my primes/tele zooms.
Would like to add here that the 28-135 is favored by amateurs and pros. Amateurs bcos they don't own the bigger and heavier (more ex also!) L lenses, or faster primes but need one zoom lens that 'does it all'.
And, I've read at least 2 pros who use this lens as a backup. Of course, not that they can't afford other bigger lenses. But on certain days, when you gotta go into mud and water, or you need to have that sudden impromptu shot, the 28-135 is handy to shoot with.
But for some, like me, who own primes or tele zooms, this lens' focal length covers a large part and I can't justify its usage over my primes/tele zooms.
"There are VERY, VERY few applications whereby an aperture of f5.6 will succeed where an aperture of f2.8 would fail. "
Well, I can easily handhold and shoot at f8 or smaller aperture at the 135mm end on a dim day but i dun think so if I were to use the the f2.8 non IS lens. I will hit the sweet spot of the lens that much easier and get better DOF at the same time.
"Oh yes, weight I certainly concede. But if mobility were the overriding factor then I'd quite honestly consider a 28-200 or 28-300 class zoom. And I'd buy a light body too. Certainly not an EOS3 or something with a "1" in it. Particularly for hand held landscape photography, do you really need anything better? "
To each his own but I seriously doubt u wud really consider the 28-200 megazoom for the obvious reason that holdability wud be a problem at the long end. I may get it if they put IS on the lens though.
And oh yes, I own only light bodies fyi.
"I find it particularly hypocritical, perhaps not in your case, but in general, that there are lots of people who complain about the weight of a professional camera body, yet given half a chance they'd own one in a flash. "
True. That's why I never want to own any such bodies.
Well, I can easily handhold and shoot at f8 or smaller aperture at the 135mm end on a dim day but i dun think so if I were to use the the f2.8 non IS lens. I will hit the sweet spot of the lens that much easier and get better DOF at the same time.
"Oh yes, weight I certainly concede. But if mobility were the overriding factor then I'd quite honestly consider a 28-200 or 28-300 class zoom. And I'd buy a light body too. Certainly not an EOS3 or something with a "1" in it. Particularly for hand held landscape photography, do you really need anything better? "
To each his own but I seriously doubt u wud really consider the 28-200 megazoom for the obvious reason that holdability wud be a problem at the long end. I may get it if they put IS on the lens though.
And oh yes, I own only light bodies fyi.
"I find it particularly hypocritical, perhaps not in your case, but in general, that there are lots of people who complain about the weight of a professional camera body, yet given half a chance they'd own one in a flash. "
True. That's why I never want to own any such bodies.
"I really do not know what to say to hand held landscape photography. Except that even Canon probably didn't intend this otherwise there would be IS on their wide angles"
well, I recall that there is the law of unintended consequences ?
The tools are there for us to use our creativity on. Sometime we need to think out of the box. I remember reading a very good book on macro or flower photography and u know what ? The author is against using tripod as she finds that it inhibits her creativity and take the joy out of spontaneous photography.
mmm...we dun need IS on wide angles do we ? They are inherently holdable at slow shutter speed.
well, I recall that there is the law of unintended consequences ?
The tools are there for us to use our creativity on. Sometime we need to think out of the box. I remember reading a very good book on macro or flower photography and u know what ? The author is against using tripod as she finds that it inhibits her creativity and take the joy out of spontaneous photography.
mmm...we dun need IS on wide angles do we ? They are inherently holdable at slow shutter speed.
That's not answering my question. There's more to photography than just hitting the sweet spot of your lens. Which incidentally IS doesn't make a difference too because if the sweet spot is say 2 stops down from wide open, then it will be f11 with the IS lens and f5.6 with the non IS lens, and we're back to square one. So the sweet spot is not a valid point. Which leaves us back at DOF, and I ask again, with a 135mm lens especially, where will f5.6 succeed where f2.8 would fail? I know you said there is more DOF, I don't deny that, but as David also points out, with a 135mmm the main difference is how out of focus the out of focus elements are going to be. You're not going to get a lot sharp by stopping down to f5.6.
To each his own but I seriously doubt u wud really consider the 28-200 megazoom for the obvious reason that holdability wud be a problem at the long end. I may get it if they put IS on the lens though.
Right.... so I take it you wouldn't buy/own/use a 600/5.6 or even a 300/4 for the same reason, unless it had IS?
What did photographers do last time when high speed emulsions were not even as good as they are today, and they had to use 200mm f5.6 lenses? Stop taking pictures?
And oh yes, I own only light bodies fyi.
Fair play.
Well, I recall that there is the law of unintended consequences?
After all, why not IS on a wide angle? After all, while they are inherently holdable at slow shutter speeds, what happened to your maxim of getting more DOF out of the lens? If you could shoot it at f11 before, with IS you could shoot it at f22. Or at f5.6 instead of f2.8 (and with wide angles, this DOES make a difference)?
And what was that thing about a sweet spot?
It just seems as if you want to be able to hand hold a lens all the time. If you can ask why you would want IS on a wide-angle, yet covet it on a 135mm, then your concern is really not DOF at all, just that you don't need to use a tripod. If so, then say so.
"Which leaves us back at DOF, and I ask again, with a 135mm lens especially, where will f5.6 succeed where f2.8 would fail? I know you said there is more DOF, I don't deny that, but as David also points out, with a 135mmm the main difference is how out of focus the out of focus elements are going to be. You're not going to get a lot sharp by stopping down to f5.6. "
The IS lens will be much better at getting more DOF at the 135mm end, which is my concern. What David thinks is the main difference is not my concern as I am not interested in out of focus stuff.
"Right.... so I take it you wouldn't buy/own/use a 600/5.6 or even a 300/4 for the same reason, unless it had IS? "
Yup. will not buy them unless I plan on using the tripod.
"What did photographers do last time when high speed emulsions were not even as good as they are today, and they had to use 200mm f5.6 lenses? Stop taking pictures?"
My dear sir, u know the answer is obvious. They will have to resort to tripods. I dun use the tripod and so I will not use the 200 f 5.6 lens. simple ?
"It just seems as if you want to be able to hand hold a lens all the time. If you can ask why you would want IS on a wide-angle, yet covet it on a 135mm, then your concern is really not DOF at all, just that you don't need to use a tripod. If so, then say so."
Dear Jed, let's not get so worked up and start jumping into conclusion and putting words into people's mouth. yes, i do not wanna use the tripod and I am also interested in getting good DOF , which the IS does a good job at the longer end. For hand held photography, I am happy to get DOF of f 16 or so, which I find is difficult when using non IS lens during dim light which incidentally happens always to coincide with the sweet light timing.
The IS lens will be much better at getting more DOF at the 135mm end, which is my concern. What David thinks is the main difference is not my concern as I am not interested in out of focus stuff.
"Right.... so I take it you wouldn't buy/own/use a 600/5.6 or even a 300/4 for the same reason, unless it had IS? "
Yup. will not buy them unless I plan on using the tripod.
"What did photographers do last time when high speed emulsions were not even as good as they are today, and they had to use 200mm f5.6 lenses? Stop taking pictures?"
My dear sir, u know the answer is obvious. They will have to resort to tripods. I dun use the tripod and so I will not use the 200 f 5.6 lens. simple ?
"It just seems as if you want to be able to hand hold a lens all the time. If you can ask why you would want IS on a wide-angle, yet covet it on a 135mm, then your concern is really not DOF at all, just that you don't need to use a tripod. If so, then say so."
Dear Jed, let's not get so worked up and start jumping into conclusion and putting words into people's mouth. yes, i do not wanna use the tripod and I am also interested in getting good DOF , which the IS does a good job at the longer end. For hand held photography, I am happy to get DOF of f 16 or so, which I find is difficult when using non IS lens during dim light which incidentally happens always to coincide with the sweet light timing.
Huh? IS or not, without a tripod, you are not going to be able to handhold a shot at f/16 during the magic hour!
Regards
CK
Originally posted by victor
"What did photographers do last time when high speed emulsions were not even as good as they are today, and they had to use 200mm f5.6 lenses? Stop taking pictures?"
My dear sir, u know the answer is obvious. They will have to resort to tripods. I dun use the tripod and so I will not use the 200 f 5.6 lens. simple ?
Oh really. So what you're saying is:
[1] You can't take a picture with a 200mm lens at f5.6 handheld.
[2] You won't touch a 200/5.6, but are quite happy to shoot a, say, 35mm lens at f16 hand held. The logic in that being? Given that observing normal hand holding practice you need less light to use the 200 at f5.6 than the 35 at f16...
Dear Jed, let's not get so worked up and start jumping into conclusion and putting words into people's mouth.
What words did I put into your mouth?
For hand held photography, I am happy to get DOF of f 16 or so, which I find is difficult when using non IS lens during dim light which incidentally happens always to coincide with the sweet light timing.
As CK has pointed out... Maybe, just maybe possible with a really wide angle lens. But then again, as you say, "we dun need IS on wide angles do we".
I am not interested in out of focus stuff
Well that says it all really. You're eliminating a good number of photographic opportunities. Not to mention you're going about it the wrong way. Sorry, but if you want extensive DOF with good sharpness, there is no substitute for a tripod.
Now answer my question, when will f5.6 be sufficient at 135mm when f2.8 will not be? That's the third time I'm asking, because I'm still waiting for a reply.
Why is a Nikon user talking about IS? :devil:
Seriously, I think there's a bit of miscommunication here.
Victor is saying (and he has a valid point) that IS is useful in those situations (like handheld landscape photography) where you need extra stability without having to lug a tripod along. Both a 2.8 lens and a 5.6 lens can do the job equally well at f16 - no argument there. I don't think Victor ever said a 5.6 lens will do what a 2.8 lens cannot do. But at f16, the 5.6 lens with IS will outperform a 2.8 lens without IS, if we are talking handheld and no tripod. I personally hardly use a tripod, I find it a pain, so I know where he's coming from. Jed thinks that there's no substitute for a tripod at f16 if you want true sharpness. More power to him. To each his own.
We're not talking about how large an aperture you can get, but how low a shutter speed you can get away with, without a tripod. Much as I like my 1.8 and 2.8 lenses, I have to agree that the 28-135 IS will do the job better FOR THE SITUATION DESCRIBED BY VICTOR. Like he said, sometimes background blur and motion freeze is not what you're after.
Having said that, I kind of dislike my 28-135 IS especially for indoor work (I do not at the moment have any other zoom in that range), because IS will NOT freeze subject movement, and I get lots of motion blur (well, my wife does, anyway - I prefer the 20mm 1.8 for indoor work) when taking pictures indoors. For this reason, I am looking at getting a Sigma 24-70 2.8 for these indoor situations where you need a zoom lens. The 28-135 is rather good outdoors, in bright sunlight. But then I prefer the 70-200 2.8 for any outdoor work. And you won't find me straying far beyond f5.6, because at f16 I will probably see large blobs of dust originating from my dirty CMOS.
Seriously, I think there's a bit of miscommunication here.
Victor is saying (and he has a valid point) that IS is useful in those situations (like handheld landscape photography) where you need extra stability without having to lug a tripod along. Both a 2.8 lens and a 5.6 lens can do the job equally well at f16 - no argument there. I don't think Victor ever said a 5.6 lens will do what a 2.8 lens cannot do. But at f16, the 5.6 lens with IS will outperform a 2.8 lens without IS, if we are talking handheld and no tripod. I personally hardly use a tripod, I find it a pain, so I know where he's coming from. Jed thinks that there's no substitute for a tripod at f16 if you want true sharpness. More power to him. To each his own.
We're not talking about how large an aperture you can get, but how low a shutter speed you can get away with, without a tripod. Much as I like my 1.8 and 2.8 lenses, I have to agree that the 28-135 IS will do the job better FOR THE SITUATION DESCRIBED BY VICTOR. Like he said, sometimes background blur and motion freeze is not what you're after.
Having said that, I kind of dislike my 28-135 IS especially for indoor work (I do not at the moment have any other zoom in that range), because IS will NOT freeze subject movement, and I get lots of motion blur (well, my wife does, anyway - I prefer the 20mm 1.8 for indoor work) when taking pictures indoors. For this reason, I am looking at getting a Sigma 24-70 2.8 for these indoor situations where you need a zoom lens. The 28-135 is rather good outdoors, in bright sunlight. But then I prefer the 70-200 2.8 for any outdoor work. And you won't find me straying far beyond f5.6, because at f16 I will probably see large blobs of dust originating from my dirty CMOS.
- Status
Similar threads
