> > Chip Louie wrote (edited): > > > Let me clarify what the 28-135 IS can do since Pierre has > > suggested it. The EF 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS USM lens is > > very similar to the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM > > but with more focal length and the addition of Image > > Stabilization. The 28-135IS is also much larger, > > heavier, uses an odd filter size and even when > > purchased used costs 3 times as much as an EF 28-105USM. > > Let ME clarify. The 28-135mm is sharper at all focal > lengths. Check www.photodo.com also Pop Photo. > You gain IS which is invaluable handholding > the lens which will work at 1/15th seconds. > The 72mm filter size is quite standard and found on > many of the Canon L lenses. > > > The 28-135 IS also is a somewhat slower lens especially > > at the long end but this is offset by the IS feature. > > Yes, at 135mm you are at F5.6 but you have 135mm > a better focla length for people portraits. > > Bottom line is you get a newer lens with IS technology. > Think about it, many manufacturers have 28-105 lens, > but only 1 has IS so you can take advantage of it. > Chip obviously owns the 28-105 so he is talking it up. > Me I own the 28-135mm and would buy it again. > Its worth the extra dollars. Like buying a new car > with more features versus a used one. > > Peter K >
Hi Peter, While I respect Photodo's reviews I don't have much respect for POP Photo. I also trust that you can read and interpret Photodo's tests. I used them as a rough guideline to help me pick what lenses to go out and rent or borrow to test. As to the filter size being weird, 72mm is weird IMO, all of my lenses use 77mm filters or 58mm except for my EF 135 2L and EF 20 2.8USM. It's a pain in the rear IMO and seems like a simple thing to consider in the design stages. I guess if you shoot only with fast primes like EF 20 2.8USM, EF 50 1L, EF 85 1.2L, EF 135 2.8L and EF 200 2.8L or the old school "L" class zooms that a 72mm thread is normal. I've owned a couple of EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM lenses and sold the last one (which I owned for only a couple of weeks), I bought for my wife to use after winning an EOS 500N kit just before Christmas at a local camera store promotion. I decided to keep the kit as a beach camera and for my kids to use. I've used several examples of both the 28-105USM and 28-135IS and IMO on film (chromes), at least they are too close to call reliably as to which one is a sharper lens because there's such a wide amount of variation in both of these lenses, it's really a crap shoot. In terms of contrast and sharpness a good 28-135IS can be almost as good as a good 28-105USM (and the one REALLY good 28-105USM I had was clearly better than any of them), but from the three 28-135IS samples I've shot with, not better. Mechanically the 28-135IS seems to have problems, especially when used heavily and often. The 28-105USM has no such problems and is dead reliable IMO because its far simpler lens design lacks the 28-135IS lens' electronics, extra glass and mechanicals to break down. There is a trend starting in the number of reported 28-135IS operational irregularities from the field right now. It's not going to get better, it can only get worse as these lenses age and start to fail in more obvious ways. By comparison, the 28-105USM is a much older lens and has been sold in far greater numbers but has shown no such trend line. As to 135mm being a "better" focal length for people, this is simply not true. I own an EF 135 2L and as a pure head shot lens 135mm is a superb focal length. But you can certainly take a step closer and get the same shot, potentially even a better one with a faster shutter speed and with prettier background blur with the later 28-105USM series I lens. Of course you could also pull the 28-135IS back to 100mm and get a similar shot but that would reduce the value of your argument that the 135mm end is better for portraits somewhat. >From where I stand newer is not necessarily better. A newer product IMO must stand on its own merit, adding features is just a way to sell newer equipment. I bought an nice shiny EF 300 4L IS after extensive shooting and comparing several rolls of chromes shot with several different really OLD rental EF 300 4L lenses and a couple brand new rental EF 300 4L IS lenses. I found that the new IS version was not even close to the images of the beat up old 300 4L rental lenses I used in testing! Even then after hemming and hawing and hating the fact that the EF 300 4L IS was a pig compared to the EF 300 2.8L I had, I bought one anyway. I wanted to shoot with IS to capture racing yachts from the foredeck, it worked great! Compared to the EF 300 2.8L the IS lens was so much lighter and safer to carry on deck in any kind of weather that I loved it. BUT, it didn't produce the same high impact images that the 300 2.8 dis. I also experimented with panned images on the race track shooting CART cars at speed but I couldn't get the effects I wanted and finally sold it. It was a good solid working lens but not great IMO. I can't wait for the EF 28-105 2.8L IS, even if it's only as good as the EF 28-70 2.8L I'd buy one. Hey, I like features as much as the next guy, but what I definitely don't want in photo gear (or for anything else for that matter), is a bunch of "features" sucking up money that could be used to make a product more reliable, more flexible, more transparent in use and certainly not at the expense of making the product fundamentally better, like in terms of optics or mechanicals. Features are what you add to products that are fundamentally weak, it makes them more attractive to potential buyers. I'd much rather spend the same or even more money on a fundamentally faster lens with a higher level of construction detail with less reach and low distortion, say a 28-105 2.8L and without IS than buy a 28-135 3.5-5.6IS. The reason is that all thing being equal, the fundamentally faster, simpler lens will give better image quality and more shooting options in creating an image than the MUCH slower lens with IS technology. I like well designed, highly functionally efficient equipment that resolves my needs, not new or old equipment with "features." But that's just me, YMMV. Regards, Chip Louie * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
