Posted by Jeff Wiebe on November 5, 2007 at 9:52 AM
I'm well on my way to saving up my pennies and buying my 40D. I'm quite excited about it. However, I'm having a hard time deciding whether to buy one of the kit lenses with it. I don't think I would use the 17-85mm, as I already have a 17-50mm that I like quite a bit. However the 28-135mm is one zoom range that I don't have covered all that well, and might be a good addition.
My question is: Does anyone have any experience with this lens? It's a little slow on the long end, but does it give good IQ? It seems to be a pretty solid deal for the $220 it will cost me to add it to my 40D, but there's no sense in picking it up if it's just going to sit in my camera bag.
Posted by Steve Foss on November 5, 2007 at 10:25 AM
Online reviews of equipment are hit and miss, but I've used a lot of different Canon gear now and this series tracks most closely with my own experiences.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on November 5, 2007 at 3:28 PM
I've heard it is similar to the 28-105 3.5-4.5 which I do have experience with. The 28-105 is a nice little lens. Good close focusing capability. Decent color and contrast. Good ergonomics (fast focus good layout of the controls). Not quite as sharp, saturated or contrasty as an L, but much better than a typical kit lens.
Posted by Buck Ward on November 5, 2007 at 6:32 PM
If this kit lens is Canon's regular 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM for $220, then it is a great deal.
This lens doesn't measure up to L lenses in build quality - it has a plastic body. But it is surprisingly sharp. Under certain circumstances, i.e. high contrast edges, it shows chromatic aberration, but this isn't enough of a problem to reject the lens. It's zoom range is very versatile.
Even at full price, this lens is not a bad value.
If, on the other hand, the lens you are considering is made by an independent manufacturer, then disregard my description above.
Posted by Lance Warley on November 6, 2007 at 9:56 AM
If you're planning to shoot wildlife, especially birds, I fear that 135mm won't be enough.
I started with the 70-300IS, which was very good but quickly became not enough. I moved up to the 400 5.6L prime, which is great but is now also becoming not enough.
Depending upon how you plan to use it, I'd suggest either the 100-400IS or the 400 prime.
Lens lust.
Posted by Arni Cheatham on November 6, 2007 at 6:06 PM
My 28-135mm experience has been very positive. No, it's not an L but versitile for a walkaround (although you won't have much at the wide end). Also light and inconspicous. I have some wicked sharp shots taken from a small plane with this lens and IS on. IMO you can't miss.
Discussion
5 repliesMy question is: Does anyone have any experience with this lens? It's a little slow on the long end, but does it give good IQ? It seems to be a pretty solid deal for the $220 it will cost me to add it to my 40D, but there's no sense in picking it up if it's just going to sit in my camera bag.
Online reviews of equipment are hit and miss, but I've used a lot of different Canon gear now and this series tracks most closely with my own experiences.
This lens doesn't measure up to L lenses in build quality - it has a plastic body. But it is surprisingly sharp. Under certain circumstances, i.e. high contrast edges, it shows chromatic aberration, but this isn't enough of a problem to reject the lens. It's zoom range is very versatile.
Even at full price, this lens is not a bad value.
If, on the other hand, the lens you are considering is made by an independent manufacturer, then disregard my description above.
I started with the 70-300IS, which was very good but quickly became not enough. I moved up to the 400 5.6L prime, which is great but is now also becoming not enough.
Depending upon how you plan to use it, I'd suggest either the 100-400IS or the 400 prime.
Lens lust.