Ken Durling wrote:
> OK, first time I've heard this comment - everybody else seems very
> enthusiastic about this lens. Don't want to start a flame war, but
> what gives?
Hi Ken,
My suggestion would be to try out this lens before buying, if at all possible.
As you suggest, different folks have different standards of quality, and what is
acceptable for one may not be acceptable for another.
That said, I personally would never buy the 28-135 IS--it is simply too slow for
my way of working, IS or no IS, and it is too big and heavy to use as a
backpacking lens. Also, I don't much care for the IS effect in the viewfinder,
although I suppose one gets accustomed to it. This is my personal subjective
opinion, so no one need be offended by it--I'm not saying others should not buy
this lens.
It might be useful to consider what kinds of subjects you intend to
photograph--if you anticipate working mostly at the 135 end (where the
performance of this lens appears to be weakest), you might be better off with
some combination of lenses that includes something like the 135/2L or 200/2.8L,
or the 70-200/4L. OTOH, if you expect to be mostly in the wide-to-normal range,
a combo like the 20-35/3.5~4.5 and 85/1.8 might be a good choice. (Personally,
if I had it to do over again I would choose the 100/2 over the 85/1.8, but when
your kit includes zooms, the 100 is a bit difficult to fit into a logical
progression of focal lengths without some overlap or close spacing between
lenses.) The 28-70/2.8L is an impressive performer but quite expensive and a bit
short on the long end, although that lens along with the 100/2 and 200/2.8 would
make a winning combination. In my view, which appears to be a minority view, you
can hardly go wrong with a well-sequenced collection of fixed-focal-length
lenses, for example: 24/2.8 - 35/2 - 50/1.8 - 100/2 - 200/2.8 (plus 1.4x
extender and CATMR tripod ring)--add a 25 mm extension tube and you can do macro
as well. I suppose I should add that I don't have this particular setup myself,
although I sometimes wish I did.
To get back to the point: along with the focal range in which you expect to work
most, consider also the nature of the subjects you intend to photograph. If
you're hoping to photograph sports or wildlife, I suspect you will find the
28-135 IS too slow to get you the shutter speeds you need except in the
brightest conditions. Remember that IS only compensates for camera shake--it
does nothing for you in terms of subject movement. So, while you may be able to
hand-hold some shot or other at 135 mm and 1/30 sec., this will do you no good
if you're trying to freeze the movement of an animal or athlete or moving
vehicle. OTOH, if you're going to be doing mostly static scenes and family
snaps, the 28-135 IS may be just the ticket. Only you can decide this.
FWIW, measured optical performance of the 28-135 IS is roughly comparable to
that of the 28-105/3.5~4.5 and the 20-35/3.5~4.5. In the case of the former, the
28-135 appears to have an edge at the wide end, but falls slightly behind at the
long end; compared with the latter, the 20-35 is better at 28 mm, but at 35 mm
is not as good as is the 28-135 at 50 mm. Distortion figures are slightly better
for the 20-35, but lpm figures are slightly better for the 28-135. The
wide-angle zoom also bests the 28-105 in distortion, while lpm figures for the
two are virtually identical. (All measurements taken from www.photodo.com.)
Decisions, decisions. . . .
fcc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
