Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

[Luffy]

I've been thinking about a new lens for my 350D with a view to upgrading to a 40D in the near future I like the look of this lens as the focal length would cover most of the photography I do
Does anyone have any experience of this lens how does it perform etc.
any views would be appreciated
How does it compare image wise to the kit 18-55mm lens
thanks

[mbscad]

Hi Luffy,
I have the 28-135 lens and I use it as my walkabout lens.
I'm very happy with it and it produces sharp pictures.
I have also recently bought an 18-55 kit lens for the wide end and I have done some comparison shots.
I could email the comparisons to you if you are interested.

Regards
Mbscad

[Luffy]

thanks that would be great

[RobDickinson]

Its better than the kit lens for sure.

Its also the FF version of the 17-85IS (effectivly the same lens but one is cut down for the crop sensor), its not that great in comparison to the L zooms but OK.

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by RobDickinson

its not that great in comparison to the L zooms but OK.

thanks

Ive looked at the L series are they worth the extra £300 will the image quality be significantly better at A3 print size or is it a minor improvement
I know its subjective and will depend on many variables whats the improvement likely to be

[homerdog]

I had one of these and found it wasn't as sharp as any of my other lenses, which included a 17-85 IS at the time. I've since sold both, but like all these things, you only really notice a difference when you do a direct comparison with something better (and usually much more expensive!).

If you believe what you read over on DPReview, Canon lenses can be variable in quality, so even if you spend loads on an L lens you may not be guaranteed good results, although that has not been my experience. I have noticed improvements in sharpness, contrast and colour, so I think they represent a good investment.

[Luffy]

Thanks Mbscad was kind enough to send me a direct comparison with between the 28-135 and the 18-55 with I already have. There is a considerable difference in the image quality between them if I was looking at a similar improvement again with an L range lens I would give serious consideration to investing the extra cash.

[jonnypb]

Originally Posted by Luffy

if I was looking at a similar improvement again with an L range lens I would give serious consideration to investing the extra cash.

you don't need to spend big to get a good lens

the sigma 17-70 is a sharp lens and will produce better results than the 28-135. You gain at the wider end but lose out at the telephoto end. Then again you'll still get good results by cropping the sigma at 70mm. Another one to consider is the 28-105 USM II which again i think it's slightly optically better than the 28-135

In fact there is a Sigma 17-70 for sale here

[Luffy]

Thanks Bubble I'll look at them I think I have ruled out the L series lenses I came across a direct comparison review last night and the image quality of the consumer zooms was only very slightly lower than the L series not enough for me to justify the difference in price as photography is only a hobby

[RobDickinson]

Cant just go on some of the best shots from both lenses tho realy.

Most lenses stoped down to f9 or whatever can be fairly sharp, you buy 'L' to shoot wide open where the cheaper zooms either cant go or look like custard.