10D and Canon EF 28-135 IS USM -any good?

I'm considering to buy the 10D and above lens for normal usage.
Is this good value or is this lens not good enough for the 10D?
Any suggestions? Is the 24-85mm better value?
I don't intend to shoot very Tele-zoom and not macro either.
Thanks for suggestions what to get for the 10D.

 

I use the 20-35 and 28-200...pretty much covers wide to long and I've
been real satisfied with the quality. You can see examples at:

http://users.techline.com/randya

 

For your usage the 28-135 will work fine. We use that lens on a D60 and 10D.
It's ability to get a sharp image at low speed while hand held is great.
Unless you really need a wide angle and can't/won't be willing to stitch
images the 1.6 x 28 will do a great job.

 

I have the same combination for a fes days.
i think is very good compromise for.

examples:

http://www.tresher.com/session/


with greetings from germany, berlin

Werner

 

I have the same combination for a few days and
i'm very satified with it...

some examples:
http://www.tresher.com/session/

D10, "Sport Mode", 28-135 LS USM

Werner
Germany, Berlin

 

I like the 28-135 IS USM lens paired with my 10D.

However the lens focus can be a little soft at times, and the light
weight construction makes me a little concerned about how it will handle
typical abuse. The f number of the lens will somewhat limit your ability
to take low light shots without a flash or a tripod. (Remember to turn
the IS off if using a tripod!) The light weight and compact size make
this a very convenient lens to carry with the camera.

Although the lens did not extend by itself (when it was pointed down)
when it was new, as it has 'broken in' I find that the zoom can change
when pointed down as has been reported by many folks.

All in all, in my opinion this is a good all around lens for the 10D but
is far from a 'L' lens in construction quality and durability.

This was the first lens I purchased for my 10D kit. I have since
purchased a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS and would also like to add a wider angle
lens -- perhaps a 16 or 17mm L zoom lens, but my wife is already rolling
her eyes about the amount of cash I have spent on my hobby, so in the
interest of domestic tranquility I have elected to hold off until a
later time.

Also, save some cash for a big CF card -- if shooting RAW you will need it!

steve

 

--


All inward and outward e-mail scanned by NAV Professional 2003

Me too, if I only want to carry one lens this one is a great all-rounder

<giggle> my husband is the same whenever I even mention L lenses - pity he
isn't more like you then maybe I would be able to buy they .... or just
share yours?

Jen

 

The 28-135 IS is a very good lens for the price. I wouldn't hesitate to
buy one for any EOS camera.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.

 

I use the 28-135 IS USM with my D60 as a general travel and multi-purpose
lens. It is quite good for a consumer grade lens, especially if you shoot
at f/8 or smaller. When travelling I like to take the 17-40/4 L USM as well
for wider angle shots. That gives good coverage and is not too bulky.
Construction quality of the L lens is much more robust, but picture quality
is not that much better.

Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/

 

In message <250920030830294296%>,

Nice pictures, but they're 640*426; how is one supposed to tell how
sharp the lens is when they are shrunk like that?

I know it's possibly a bad idea to give out full-frame original work at
full resolution, but a little crop of a 1:1 is really what is needed to
show lens quality.
--

 

Hi Steve,

Could you please tell me why the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS is better?
Are L lenses better in general?
I'm trying to get the right lens(es). Most people said the 28-235 is very
good.
I'm still a little bit in the dark.

Thanks.

 

Nice pictures, but they're 640*426; how is one supposed to tell how

The uncompressed TIFFs are 36MB in size...a bit much for even DSL
people. Suppose I could bump 'em up to 800x600.

 

Well,

The 70-200 lens is very different than the 28-135 in focal length so
there is no direct comparison in this parameter obviously.

Pros:

The L series lens is much more robust metal construction, zooms without
changing length or rotating the front element, maintains a constant
f/2.8 throughout the zoom range, is much better sealed against moisture
and dirt, and seems to have better contrast and sharpness as well as
less distortions than the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The L lens utilizes
much better glass in the most optically critical lens elements and focus
and zoom controls feel much more substantial. The L lens won't 'zoom' by
itself if it is tilted up / down.

(The L lens also came with a soft case, strap, lens shade and tripod
ring, but these items do not justify the cost differential by themselves
obviously!)

Cons:

The L lens cost approx. $1600.00 (gulp!), weighs several pounds (I felt
every pound on a recent Sierra high altitude hike where I took the
camera kit and both lenses), and is 'white' rather than black, which
makes it stand out like a sore thumb. I am told that thieves often
recognize the L series lenses making them a favorite target for theft.
The L lens uses larger diameter filters, increasing filter cost.

I purchased the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS lens because I wanted a longer lens,
particularly for wildlife and sports photography where I needed a 'fast'
lens to shoot in low light conditions where image stabilization enhances
my ability to get shots where use of a tripod is not possible.

I was also curious 'what all the fuss was about' regarding Canon's
professional series (L) lenses, most of which seem to be quite highly
rated by many sources.

I am very happy with the purchase but still trying to 'recharge' my
photography piggy bank to buy a wide angle lens to augment my kit.

ps I am glad I lugged the lens on my hike -- I am still pouring over the
photos and the image quality improvement of the L lens is sometimes
quite remarkable. There were several circumstances where I was able to
successfully capture bird / deer photos that probably would have been
impossible with the slower lens, and was able to hand hold some very low
light level landscape photography.

Regards,

steve

 

You can do full size 3072x2048 JPEG at under 1 megabyte..

True there will be some artifacting, but you will have a better representation
of the image than one that is shrunk to 800x600.. Shrinking tends to reduce
noise and add sharpness..

Another option would be to show an 800x600 unsized crop.

 

In message <260920030655567943%>,

I clearly said I wouldn't expect the full-resolution original. If you
want to show off the sharpness of your lens, you will need a crop of the
original, say a 100*100 crop from a corner, and one from the center.

I was merely pointing out the futility of demonstrating one aspect of
lens quality (sharpness), with downsampled images.

All lenses look sharp when you take a 6.3mp image and shrink it to a
0.27mp image. However, you can still demonstrate overall geometric
distortion (or lack thereof), or contrast, etc.
--

 

I clearly said I wouldn't expect the full-resolution original. If you

Well, the Web site exists so that I don't have to E-mail pics to
everybody. It's not there to demonstrate how good my equipment is or
isn't.

 

In message <260920031525459142%>,

You wrote that one could see the quality of the lens at the website.

I commented that one important aspect of quality is unavailable there.

That's all.
--

 

Hi Steve,

Usually the L lenses are of a bigger max apertures, have less distortion, and
are built more solidly with more metal. As for sharpness differences there may
be at bigger apertures but in comparison to the best non L lenses there really
is no difference in sharpness. I have the 28-135 IS and can tell you it is a
very sharp lens and the IS feature works great. The only drawback to the lens
is when the lens is used at around 100mm and up when the smallest max aperture
kicks in which then greatly affects AF performance. The difference in
comparison to an older Tokina 28-70 2.8 ATX lens I had was big. The focusing is
obviously slower but more importantly is less accurate with much more hunting.
If you are used to a constant max aperture of 2.8 then the lens may disappoint
you in that regard. Overall though it is a very nice lens, though a bit bulky.