Hi,
I read with interest the many comments on the performance of the
28-135 and have to say I really do agree except for some concerns
that I have with the distortion on the widest end.
In late March 2001, I bought this lens and proceeded to take some
test photos with it. I used my EF50 f/1.8 II as a comparison for
several of the photos. What I found was that my 28-135 had a
warmer cast and after more rolls & 3 weeks later, decided that I
had to get it changed.
My local dealer explained to me that the colour cast was probably
due to the coating on the lens but offered to make a one time
exchange for me (i.e. I need to go back to Canon if there were
any more complains). I thought that was reasonable and got a
second piece and proceeded to test it against my prime 50mm, only
this time I decided to put my Tamron 28-200 to the test as well.
When my photos came back, I was pretty shocked to discover that
the 28-135 had significant barrel distortion at the widest end.
Even the Tamron did better at this focal length (28mm). I tried
to re-read as many user reviews as I could but did not reach any
definite conclusion as while some reported significant barrel
distortion at 28mm, others said they had insignificant barrel
distortion.
In other to allow for others with this lens to compare their
photos taken at 28mm with mine, I scanned some of my test photos
and uploaded them to my website (the rest of the site is still
not ready). I'd appreciate it if you can spare some time to take
a look at them and email me your comparative comments. I do intend
to put my tests and experiences with this lens into a review at a
later stage when I do find more time to fix my website. Here is
the link:
http://eoslightbox.com/EF28-135ISUSMreview.html
Oh, btw, I also went down to Canon's service centre and spoke with
a Customer Service Technical Supervisor about my lens. After some
discussion, she agreed to perform some tests on their lens and
get back to me later. A few days later, she called to say that
I could return to take a look at their photos. She had taken some
test shots using their 28-135 (which she claimed was a 'good' piece)
as well as a 28-105 for comparison. From the photos, I found that
their 28-135 had almost similar amounts of barrel distortion but I
still do hope to hear from other users about their own experiences.
Cheers!!!
Edmund
> Gerard Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Fred,
>
> My vote for the 28-135IS. If I have to leave home with only one lens that will be
> it. I've been in Paris a couple of times and you can get most shots with it.
> And IS is a blessing. I even got some nice pics of Notre Dame from those tour
> boats on the Thames, and I was using ISO 100 film in one cloudy early winter day.
>
> If you can, go for the 28-135IS, I'm sure you won't regret it.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Gerard.
>
> PS: I DO NOT agree with the statement of the 28-135 being soft at any end... but
> we may fall in the discussion of few weeks ago about personal standards...
>
> Anyway, for family album/travel pics, I'm pretty convinced that the 28-135 is an
> excelent performer.
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
