Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
- Thread starter bvukich
- Start date
A person who understands their equipment, like you, can capture great images. The photographer is at least 90% of the equation.
Upvote
0
Our family took a trip to the park, and we brought along the 7D with this lens. One day, I will have my follow focus, but the focus in a few places was pretty tight. Watch it in 1080p if you can. The slowed footage was originally 720p (60fps), so it isn't as sharp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHeUhk1EfCw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHeUhk1EfCw
Upvote
0
Some beutifull pics there guys, but have to say I have had very poor results with this lens and a fiend of mine has 2 of them and he only has kept them for backup for his 24-105. I know that its hit and miss sometimes with lens copies, but I found the autofocus in them to be so unreliable and when I use it on my 5D mark2, it isn't a winning combination for Modern Wedding Photography. I now use the 24-105 which isn't brilliant but its much better. The reason why im giving my 2cents about this is that I think Canon should have replaced this lens a long time ago, such lens's like the efs17-85 and the 15-85 which would be comparable are much better performers in my opinion. I just think Canon should address this because if they brought out a 28-135 mk2 I would most definatelly buy it. What do you guys think?
Upvote
0
Rob said:
I really don't see them updating this lens. It's Canon's only current FF-compatible non-L general purpose zoom lens, and 28mm is not wide enough as a general purpose zoom for a 1.6x crop body. If you have a FF body, Canon wants you to buy an L-series zoom for it (e.g. the 24-105mm f/4L IS 'kit lens' for the 5DII), and if you have a 1.6x crop body, Canon makes EF-S lenses for you. The 28-135mm was a good kit lens when it was designed - but that was back in the day when FF was the norm (i.e. film). In effect it was replaced by the EF-S 17-85mm (27-136mm FF-equivalent with a variable aperture), and that lens was recently 'updated' (replaced, in fact, by the EF-S 15-85mm).
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of bodies that Canon sells are APS-C format, and there's a substantial price gap between APS-C bodies and bodies with larger sensors. If you're in the majority you buy EF-S lenses at shorter focal lengths (and often EF or L lenses in the telephoto range, since EF-S lenses don't really offer much benefit there). If you can afford a FF body, you can probably afford L lenses (or so Canon seems to believe). That's why we're seeing only EF-S and L-series lenses being updated/released, and no recent EF non-L lenses.
Upvote
0
I'm thinking about getting mine replaced by the 24-105.
As MK5GTI stated I also had acceptable results only from F8 and above. I won't say it's a bad lens, especially when you think of its price. But when it comes to low light situations the IS helps but it can't do magic.
Still hesitating a little as the 24-70 would be another option, too. It's 2.8 but no IS. The 24-105 has IS but is 4.0. :-\
As MK5GTI stated I also had acceptable results only from F8 and above. I won't say it's a bad lens, especially when you think of its price. But when it comes to low light situations the IS helps but it can't do magic.
Still hesitating a little as the 24-70 would be another option, too. It's 2.8 but no IS. The 24-105 has IS but is 4.0. :-\
Upvote
0
I recently found one of these in a closet on a Rebel 2000.
Well had to clean the focus ring as the rubber had become all molten, and it works fine, but I agree with others here, not quite the keeper lens, although I can't complain for it being free
Well had to clean the focus ring as the rubber had become all molten, and it works fine, but I agree with others here, not quite the keeper lens, although I can't complain for it being free
Upvote
0
Similar threads
