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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Marcel Titus, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Marcel Titus

    Marcel Titus Guest

    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.
    Marcel Titus, Sep 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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:

    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Marcel Titus

    Bob Hatch Guest

    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.
    Bob Hatch, Sep 25, 2003
  4. Marcel Titus

    Werner Wolff Guest

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



    with greetings from germany, berlin

    Werner Wolff, Sep 25, 2003
  5. Marcel Titus

    Werner Wolff Guest

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

    some examples:

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

    Germany, Berlin
    Werner Wolff, Sep 25, 2003
  6. Marcel Titus

    steve Guest

    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, Sep 25, 2003
  7. Marcel Titus

    JJ Guest


    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?

    JJ, Sep 25, 2003
  8. Marcel Titus

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Tony Spadaro, Sep 26, 2003
  9. Marcel Titus

    Scott Elliot Guest

    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
    Scott Elliot, Sep 26, 2003
  10. Marcel Titus

    JPS Guest

    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.
    JPS, Sep 26, 2003
  11. Marcel Titus

    Marcel Titus Guest

    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
    I'm still a little bit in the dark.

    Thanks. :)
    Marcel Titus, Sep 26, 2003
  12. 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.
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 26, 2003
  13. Marcel Titus

    steve Guest


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


    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


    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.


    steve, Sep 26, 2003
  14. Marcel Titus

    Jim Townsend Guest

    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.
    Jim Townsend, Sep 26, 2003
  15. Marcel Titus

    JPS Guest

    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.
    JPS, Sep 26, 2003
  16. 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
    Randall Ainsworth, Sep 26, 2003
  17. Marcel Titus

    JPS Guest

    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.
    JPS, Sep 26, 2003
  18. Marcel Titus

    FOR7b Guest

    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.

    FOR7b, Sep 28, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.