Rethinking Canon 28-135 to 24-70 f2.8L

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill, Jun 2, 2004.

  1. Bill

    Bill Guest

    I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I have
    28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.

    I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    sharpness.

    I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".

    Any opinions?

    Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
    before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.
     
    Bill, Jun 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill

    Mike Jenkins Guest

    Several stores in L.A. area rent "L" lenses. Try Samy's, BelAir, ProFoto in
    Irvine, etc
    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I

    have
    > 28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
    >
    > I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    > the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    > the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    > the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    > sharpness.
    >
    > I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
    >
    > Any opinions?
    >
    > Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
    > before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.
     
    Mike Jenkins, Jun 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill

    JIM Guest

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    .....<cut>....
    > I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    > the range and it's relatively inexpensive. ....<cut>....Though I'm

    cringing at
    > the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping ....<cut>.... Any opinions?

    .....<cut>....

    Another consideration is the 1.6x factor. Not a great deal to choose
    between, but the 28 looks like almost a 50 in 35mm while the 24 gets you
    around the look of a 38mm. I have found that, 'usually,' getting closer is
    easier than backing up - especially indoors........

    Shoot'em up, wide/long, sharp/blurred, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the rest
    will love you for it!!

    Jim
     
    JIM, Jun 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Bill

    John J Guest

    > I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    > the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    > the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    > the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    > sharpness.



    I don't have the 28-135 but I do have the 24-70 and I can highly recommend
    it. You'll get over the cost eventually...
    JJ
     
    John J, Jun 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Bill

    Phil Wheeler Guest

    Also Paul's Photo in Torrance.

    Mike Jenkins wrote:
    > Several stores in L.A. area rent "L" lenses. Try Samy's, BelAir, ProFoto in
    > Irvine, etc
    > "Bill" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I

    >
    > have
    >
    >>28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
    >>
    >>I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    >>the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    >>the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    >>the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    >>sharpness.
    >>
    >>I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
    >>
    >>Any opinions?
    >>
    >>Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
    >>before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.

    >
    >
    >
     
    Phil Wheeler, Jun 2, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>, says...
    > I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I have
    > 28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
    >
    > I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    > the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    > the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    > the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    > sharpness.
    >
    > I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
    >
    > Any opinions?
    >
    > Also, do stores rent high end lenses where I could test lenses
    > before I buy? I live in the Los Angeles area.


    The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
    of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
    at less than $500.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Bill

    John J Guest

    > The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
    > of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
    > at less than $500.


    Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
    notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
    few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
    results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
    advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
    would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
    something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
    along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
    conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.

    How do I know this, well that's another story...

    Regards
    JJ
     
    John J, Jun 2, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <c9kk9l$1h9h$>,
    says...
    > > The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
    > > of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
    > > at less than $500.

    >
    > Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
    > notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
    > few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
    > results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
    > advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
    > would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
    > something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
    > along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
    > conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.
    >
    > How do I know this, well that's another story...


    'Softness' with the 28-135mm USM IS is really a matter of opinion. If
    he thinks its soft because other people have said so (read the post
    carefully), he might not realize the lens could fill his needs for less
    than the L lens. The only way for him to make the determination is to
    try both lenses and keep the one he thinks will work best for him. Many
    camera stores in the US are glad to let you try or rent lenses, so it
    isn't critical he makes the right choice the first time.

    If you dislike the 28-135mm fine. It doesn't take razor sharp pictures
    of newsprint like a L lens. But it costs a third as much and the IS
    comes in handy for those of us with shaky hands. In the right hands,
    great photos can result from this lens. There is no reason for the
    original poster not to try out the lens and see if it suits his needs
    and budget better than the 24-70L.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 2, 2004
    #8
  9. Bill

    John J Guest


    >The only way for him to make the determination is to
    > try both lenses and keep the one he thinks will work best for him.


    Yes, it's the best way.
    JJ
     
    John J, Jun 2, 2004
    #9
  10. Bill

    Warren Jones Guest

    If the op finds the Zuiko 28mm and 50mm lenses "soft", then nothing short of
    the best "L" lenses will satisfy! A 50mm f1.8 Mk I would give the 28mm Zuiko
    a good run at same approx. FOV, and still is my 'must have' lens for the
    10D.

    "John J" <> wrote in message
    news:c9kk9l$1h9h$...
    > > The 28-135 is plenty sharp for most uses and it can't be beat in terms
    > > of value. Is it as sharp as an L lens? No. But it's a hell of a deal
    > > at less than $500.

    >
    > Ummm...I realise that this is your opinion, and that's fine, but did you
    > notice that the op has already complained about "softness". As relatively
    > few people do this I have to assume that he is fairly critical of the
    > results he is after. Recommending a "so so " lens doesn't seem like good
    > advice to me. On the other hand the 24-70 is really quite expensive but I
    > would strongly argue that the op will save a tonne of cash by buying
    > something very good in the first place rather than trying everything else
    > along the way, until he comes to the same inevitable and expensive
    > conclusion, and loses money on every transaction along the way.
    >
    > How do I know this, well that's another story...
    >
    > Regards
    > JJ
    >
    >
     
    Warren Jones, Jun 2, 2004
    #10
  11. Bill wrote:
    > I'm transitioning from film (Olympus SLR) to a Canon 10d. Currently I have
    > 28, 50, 75-150 for my Olympus and haven't been happy with the softness.
    >
    > I've was thinking of initially getting the 28-135 IS USM because of
    > the range and it's relatively inexpensive. Now I'm concerned about
    > the softness after reading more about it. Though I'm cringing at
    > the price of the 24-70mm, I'm hoping I would get over it with the
    > sharpness.
    >
    > I take photos on my travels, hikes and "snapshots".
    >
    > Any opinions?


    Bill,

    Here are some tests that show the sharpness of the 28-135 IS
    versus other lenses.

    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpness

    It is very sharp, especially when stopped down. It is soft
    wide open at 28mm. Overall a very good lens.
    I do not have the 24-70 L (which is not IS, correct?).
    Just because it is an "L" doesn't mean sharp (see the
    100-400 L on the above page). Zooms will in general not
    be as good as primes.
    If the lens is not IS I would recommend skip[ping it.
    There have been many times when the IS was
    critical to getting a good image,
    from inside old churches (e.g. the stained glass windows) in
    Europe, to imaging from boats, horseback, or other
    moving platforms/places where you can't use a tripod.

    I value sharpness in my images a lot, drum scan many
    images and make very large prints from 35mm and 4x5.

    Photos, other digital and image detail info at:
    http://clarkvision.com

    Roger Clark
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 5, 2004
    #11
  12. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    > Here are some tests that show the sharpness of the 28-135 IS
    > versus other lenses.
    >
    > http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpness
    >
    > It is very sharp, especially when stopped down. It is soft
    > wide open at 28mm. Overall a very good lens.
    > I do not have the 24-70 L (which is not IS, correct?).
    > Just because it is an "L" doesn't mean sharp (see the
    > 100-400 L on the above page). Zooms will in general not
    > be as good as primes.
    > If the lens is not IS I would recommend skip[ping it.
    > There have been many times when the IS was
    > critical to getting a good image,
    > from inside old churches (e.g. the stained glass windows) in
    > Europe, to imaging from boats, horseback, or other
    > moving platforms/places where you can't use a tripod.
    >
    > I value sharpness in my images a lot, drum scan many
    > images and make very large prints from 35mm and 4x5.
    >
    > Photos, other digital and image detail info at:
    > http://clarkvision.com


    Thanks for the feedback Roger. The 24-70L isn't IS but
    because it's short, I don't think it's something Canon
    would put on.

    I've been doing quite a bit of research, trying to find
    as much as I can to compare lenses. The one site I found
    very useful is:
    http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

    My wish list has 16-35mm f2.8L USM and 70-200mm f4L USM
    (or 70-200 f2.8L USM IS... 3 pounder).


    I figure the 24-70L will get me started and allows coverage
    of a normal 50mm lens plus much more. The other two lenses
    will cover the wide angle and a decent telephoto range.

    Have you ever used a monopod? I'm thinking of getting one
    because I don't want to carry a tripod on my overseas
    trip later this year.

    Well, I transferred money into my checking account so I'm about
    ready to make the plunge!
     
    Bill, Jun 5, 2004
    #12
  13. Bill wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    >
    >>If the lens is not IS I would recommend skip[ping it.
    >>There have been many times when the IS was
    >>critical to getting a good image,
    >>from inside old churches (e.g. the stained glass windows) in
    >>Europe, to imaging from boats, horseback, or other
    >>moving platforms/places where you can't use a tripod.


    > Thanks for the feedback Roger. The 24-70L isn't IS but
    > because it's short, I don't think it's something Canon
    > would put on.


    > Have you ever used a monopod? I'm thinking of getting one
    > because I don't want to carry a tripod on my overseas
    > trip later this year.


    No, I don't use a monopod. Like I note above, there are
    places where you can't use a tripod (or a monopod).
    For example, museums and many churches. But, if you want to
    take night shots, e.g. a city at night, you need a tripod.
    A small tripod is great for that if you want to travel
    light. If you are going overseas and want some different
    pictures, take a tripod and do night scenes. Most people
    don't have a tripod so don't get these images. My favorite
    images in Florence, Italy are the night images along
    the river. Then I got pictures of stained glass in a church
    in Ireland on Fuji Velvia (iso 50) handheld at 1/8 sec
    (no tripods allowed) and the IS helped keep the image
    tack sharp. That's right after I got the 28-135 IS, and
    I've been sold on IS, even on a short lens, ever since.

    Do you have any IS lenses? If not, I strongly suggest
    getting one and trying it before buying expensive
    lenses that are not IS. I have IS from 28 to 500mm, and
    would not want another lens without IS, unless it
    is a very special lens. There are simply too many
    situations where the IS helps get the image, and get it
    sharp. Without IS the sharpest lens in the world
    would not help because the image sharpness is limited
    by movement, not the lens sharpness.

    I am currently in a dilemma. I retired my 100-400L IS
    because it is not sharp enough and have replaced it
    with a 300 mm f/4 L IS (very sharp). But my next lens
    down is the 28-135 IS, so I have a gap in the 200mm range.
    What to choose: the 200mm f/2.8 fixed or the 70-200 mm
    f/2.8 L IS? If the 200 is sharper, I want it, but it
    doesn't have IS, so I'll probably go with the IS.
    The sharpness difference is negligible in comparison to
    what IS give you.

    I hope this helps,

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 5, 2004
    #13
  14. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    >
    > Bill wrote:
    > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    > >
    > >>If the lens is not IS I would recommend skip[ping it.
    > >>There have been many times when the IS was
    > >>critical to getting a good image,
    > >>from inside old churches (e.g. the stained glass windows) in
    > >>Europe, to imaging from boats, horseback, or other
    > >>moving platforms/places where you can't use a tripod.

    >
    > > Thanks for the feedback Roger. The 24-70L isn't IS but
    > > because it's short, I don't think it's something Canon
    > > would put on.

    >
    > > Have you ever used a monopod? I'm thinking of getting one
    > > because I don't want to carry a tripod on my overseas
    > > trip later this year.

    >
    > No, I don't use a monopod. Like I note above, there are
    > places where you can't use a tripod (or a monopod).
    > For example, museums and many churches. But, if you want to
    > take night shots, e.g. a city at night, you need a tripod.
    > A small tripod is great for that if you want to travel
    > light. If you are going overseas and want some different
    > pictures, take a tripod and do night scenes. Most people
    > don't have a tripod so don't get these images. My favorite
    > images in Florence, Italy are the night images along
    > the river. Then I got pictures of stained glass in a church
    > in Ireland on Fuji Velvia (iso 50) handheld at 1/8 sec
    > (no tripods allowed) and the IS helped keep the image
    > tack sharp. That's right after I got the 28-135 IS, and
    > I've been sold on IS, even on a short lens, ever since.


    I'm new to Canon so one of reasons I selected the 28-135 IS
    as my initial lens is because of the IS. But after reading
    how soft it was compared to the 24-70L and the 70-200L I
    decided I should bite the bullet now.

    The 28-135 and 28-300L are the only lenses that have IS
    that cover an equivalent 50mm lens, which is my primary
    objective for my first lens. Since the former isn't as
    sharp and the latter is beyond my price range I think
    the 24-70L is the lens I need. Though a soft IS lens
    may be better than a hand-held non-IS lens in certain
    circumstances, that situation is resolved by a tripod
    as you indicated.

    > Do you have any IS lenses? If not, I strongly suggest
    > getting one and trying it before buying expensive
    > lenses that are not IS. I have IS from 28 to 500mm, and
    > would not want another lens without IS, unless it
    > is a very special lens. There are simply too many
    > situations where the IS helps get the image, and get it
    > sharp. Without IS the sharpest lens in the world
    > would not help because the image sharpness is limited
    > by movement, not the lens sharpness.


    I agree that IS would be ideal. However my budget
    is constrained so I have to be picky with what lenses
    I purchase.

    > I am currently in a dilemma. I retired my 100-400L IS
    > because it is not sharp enough and have replaced it
    > with a 300 mm f/4 L IS (very sharp). But my next lens
    > down is the 28-135 IS, so I have a gap in the 200mm range.
    > What to choose: the 200mm f/2.8 fixed or the 70-200 mm
    > f/2.8 L IS? If the 200 is sharper, I want it, but it
    > doesn't have IS, so I'll probably go with the IS.
    > The sharpness difference is negligible in comparison to
    > what IS give you.
    >
    > I hope this helps,


    Thanks for your assistance Roger!
     
    Bill, Jun 5, 2004
    #14
  15. Bill wrote:

    > I'm new to Canon so one of reasons I selected the 28-135 IS
    > as my initial lens is because of the IS. But after reading
    > how soft it was compared to the 24-70L and the 70-200L I
    > decided I should bite the bullet now.


    I guess I don't understand your impression that the
    28-135 IS is soft. It only has one weak spot:
    wide open at its shortest focal length. At f/ll,
    which is where you would want to use most short lenses
    for maximizing depth of field and sharpness on a tripod,
    the lens is very sharp, and comparable to most
    lenses. See:

    http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpness

    At f/11 most lenses, L-series or not, are quite sharp.

    I carry a 24mm f/2.8 fixed and the 28-135; they meet most
    all my needs. If I think I might need 28 wide open, I'll
    add the 28mm f/2.8 too. The 24 and 28 fixed are low cost but
    sharp lenses. If you are really concerned
    about sharpness use only primes and don't even look
    at a zoom. If you really want
    large prints, move to medium or large format. The
    jump in image quality is astounding and far beyond the
    meager differences in soft versus sharp 35mm lenses.

    You also didn't mention what kind of film you use.
    If you use 100 and higher speed film, the sharpness of ALL
    the lenses on the above web page will NOT be an issue.
    Only if you use slow speed high resolution film like fuji velvia
    (ISO 50) will such issues be evident. Then you will hit
    other limits to image sharpness: e.g. tripod. To take
    advantage of the sharpest lenses, using fine grained
    film, you need a sturdy tripod (= weight and/or many $$$$).

    I use the 28-135 for landscape (when I don't have time for
    the 4x5) and make 20x30 inch enlargements that are very sharp.
    I use a tripod, and stop down to f/11 and use fine grained film.
    If I'm doing snapshots handheld, the IS make the difference,
    and I carry the 28-135 IS. I now use a carbon fiber tripod
    (gitzo 1328).

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 5, 2004
    #15
  16. Bill

    Skip M Guest

    "Bill" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    > >
    > > Bill wrote:
    > > > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>If the lens is not IS I would recommend skip[ping it.
    > > >>There have been many times when the IS was
    > > >>critical to getting a good image,
    > > >>from inside old churches (e.g. the stained glass windows) in
    > > >>Europe, to imaging from boats, horseback, or other
    > > >>moving platforms/places where you can't use a tripod.

    > >
    > > > Thanks for the feedback Roger. The 24-70L isn't IS but
    > > > because it's short, I don't think it's something Canon
    > > > would put on.

    > >
    > > > Have you ever used a monopod? I'm thinking of getting one
    > > > because I don't want to carry a tripod on my overseas
    > > > trip later this year.

    > >
    > > No, I don't use a monopod. Like I note above, there are
    > > places where you can't use a tripod (or a monopod).
    > > For example, museums and many churches. But, if you want to
    > > take night shots, e.g. a city at night, you need a tripod.
    > > A small tripod is great for that if you want to travel
    > > light. If you are going overseas and want some different
    > > pictures, take a tripod and do night scenes. Most people
    > > don't have a tripod so don't get these images. My favorite
    > > images in Florence, Italy are the night images along
    > > the river. Then I got pictures of stained glass in a church
    > > in Ireland on Fuji Velvia (iso 50) handheld at 1/8 sec
    > > (no tripods allowed) and the IS helped keep the image
    > > tack sharp. That's right after I got the 28-135 IS, and
    > > I've been sold on IS, even on a short lens, ever since.

    >
    > I'm new to Canon so one of reasons I selected the 28-135 IS
    > as my initial lens is because of the IS. But after reading
    > how soft it was compared to the 24-70L and the 70-200L I
    > decided I should bite the bullet now.
    >
    > The 28-135 and 28-300L are the only lenses that have IS
    > that cover an equivalent 50mm lens, which is my primary
    > objective for my first lens. Since the former isn't as
    > sharp and the latter is beyond my price range I think
    > the 24-70L is the lens I need. Though a soft IS lens
    > may be better than a hand-held non-IS lens in certain
    > circumstances, that situation is resolved by a tripod
    > as you indicated.
    >
    > > Do you have any IS lenses? If not, I strongly suggest
    > > getting one and trying it before buying expensive
    > > lenses that are not IS. I have IS from 28 to 500mm, and
    > > would not want another lens without IS, unless it
    > > is a very special lens. There are simply too many
    > > situations where the IS helps get the image, and get it
    > > sharp. Without IS the sharpest lens in the world
    > > would not help because the image sharpness is limited
    > > by movement, not the lens sharpness.

    >
    > I agree that IS would be ideal. However my budget
    > is constrained so I have to be picky with what lenses
    > I purchase.
    >



    >
    > Thanks for your assistance Roger!


    How sharp do you need? I've looked at Roger's tests, and, frankly, I
    haven't had them confirmed in real life shooting. These images were shot
    with the 28-135IS:
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/jeff.htm

    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Alexia.html

    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Suspended.html (D30)

    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/age.htm

    This last one was shot at 50mm f4 at 1/4 sec, hand held. IS will save the
    shot when you need it to.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Jun 5, 2004
    #16
  17. Bill

    Bill Guest

    I guess I should have written that I'm reading that
    the 28-135 IS is "softer" than the 24-70L. I read
    that people love the 28-135 IS so that's why I'm
    in a quandary.

    Trying to decide between the two lenses is difficult.
    I have looked at the MTF charts of the two and overall
    the L lens seems to be better. Hearing differing
    opinions help but it's still subjective.

    I haven't decided exactly what I want for wide angle.
    I have thought about both prime and zoom but that
    decision will be after my initial purchase.

    I generally used 100 and higher. I haven't been
    been happy with the sharpness but never investigated
    the reason, whether mechanical problems or
    photographer problems. So I'm starting from
    scratch with all new Canon equipment.

    BTW, I pulled my father's old Zeis-Ikon 120 film
    camera (circa 1952) and only shot a couple of rolls.
    I still need to play around with it.

    Well, maybe I'll go back to the idea of renting
    the two lenses and play before I buy.

    Thanks again.

    Bill



    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    >
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    > > I'm new to Canon so one of reasons I selected the 28-135 IS
    > > as my initial lens is because of the IS. But after reading
    > > how soft it was compared to the 24-70L and the 70-200L I
    > > decided I should bite the bullet now.

    >
    > I guess I don't understand your impression that the
    > 28-135 IS is soft. It only has one weak spot:
    > wide open at its shortest focal length. At f/ll,
    > which is where you would want to use most short lenses
    > for maximizing depth of field and sharpness on a tripod,
    > the lens is very sharp, and comparable to most
    > lenses. See:
    >
    > http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/relative-lens-sharpness
    >
    > At f/11 most lenses, L-series or not, are quite sharp.
    >
    > I carry a 24mm f/2.8 fixed and the 28-135; they meet most
    > all my needs. If I think I might need 28 wide open, I'll
    > add the 28mm f/2.8 too. The 24 and 28 fixed are low cost but
    > sharp lenses. If you are really concerned
    > about sharpness use only primes and don't even look
    > at a zoom. If you really want
    > large prints, move to medium or large format. The
    > jump in image quality is astounding and far beyond the
    > meager differences in soft versus sharp 35mm lenses.
    >
    > You also didn't mention what kind of film you use.
    > If you use 100 and higher speed film, the sharpness of ALL
    > the lenses on the above web page will NOT be an issue.
    > Only if you use slow speed high resolution film like fuji velvia
    > (ISO 50) will such issues be evident. Then you will hit
    > other limits to image sharpness: e.g. tripod. To take
    > advantage of the sharpest lenses, using fine grained
    > film, you need a sturdy tripod (= weight and/or many $$$$).
    >
    > I use the 28-135 for landscape (when I don't have time for
    > the 4x5) and make 20x30 inch enlargements that are very sharp.
    > I use a tripod, and stop down to f/11 and use fine grained film.
    > If I'm doing snapshots handheld, the IS make the difference,
    > and I carry the 28-135 IS. I now use a carbon fiber tripod
    > (gitzo 1328).
    >
    > Roger


    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bruce Hatakeyama
    mailto:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bill, Jun 5, 2004
    #17
  18. Bill

    Bill Guest

    Hi Skip,

    I didn't mean to malign the 128-135IS. I know that it is an
    excellent lens and it can produce excellent results.

    How sharp do I need? I don't know. Perhaps the 128-135IS
    is sharp enough. I'm thinking that perhaps I need to go
    with the idea of renting both lenses before I buy.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    bill

    > How sharp do you need? I've looked at Roger's tests, and, frankly, I
    > haven't had them confirmed in real life shooting. These images were shot
    > with the 28-135IS:
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/jeff.htm
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Alexia.html
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Suspended.html (D30)
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/age.htm
     
    Bill, Jun 5, 2004
    #18
  19. In article <>, says...
    > Well, maybe I'll go back to the idea of renting
    > the two lenses and play before I buy.
    >
    > Thanks again.
    >
    > Bill


    That's probably the best bet. No doubt the 24-70L is a fine lens (that
    I would love to add to my collection), but I can't see giving up my 28-
    135 at any point. It's too flexible for me to rule out altogether
    unless they come out with a fixed maximum aperture model. Please Canon?
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 6, 2004
    #19
  20. Skip M wrote:


    > How sharp do you need? I've looked at Roger's tests, and, frankly, I
    > haven't had them confirmed in real life shooting.


    Skip,
    What do you mean by my tests not confirmed by your real
    life shooting? Do you mean you don't see the
    sharpness, or you don't see softness and 28mm wide open,
    or ....?

    Your images below are very nice, but unless we see
    full resolution enlargements, they tell us nothing
    about ultimate sharpness, only that the small
    image is sharp.

    Roger

    > These images were shot
    > with the 28-135IS:
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/jeff.htm
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Alexia.html
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/Suspended.html (D30)
    >
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com/age.htm
    >
    > This last one was shot at 50mm f4 at 1/4 sec, hand held. IS will save the
    > shot when you need it to.
    >
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jun 6, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Frank B

    Canon 10D Full Res 24-85, 28-135 IS Samples

    Frank B, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    776
    Frank B
    Jul 17, 2003
  2. Lionel
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    473
    Lionel
    Sep 5, 2003
  3. Derek Fountain

    Canon 28-105 vs Canon 28-135 lenses

    Derek Fountain, Mar 10, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    559
    David Griffin
    Mar 12, 2005
  4. richard

    Rethinking mysterious roswell crash

    richard, Jan 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    895
    Whiskers
    Jan 11, 2010
  5. Yao Ziyuan

    Rethinking the Recycle Bin

    Yao Ziyuan, May 3, 2011, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    871
    Yao Ziyuan
    May 4, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page