28-135mm IS USM vs. the rest....

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Policar, May 7, 2012.

  1. Policar, May 7, 2012
    Last edited: May 7, 2012

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #1
    I've got a 5D Mark III I use primarily for videos (my hobby). My favorite focal lengths on full frame are 28mm to 135mm so I have 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, and 135mm Nikkor primes, which I'm outfitting with geared fitting focus rings and shimmed adapters. I love older lenses for video because of the bokeh, focus throw, hard stops, and speed for the price. I'm adding a 70-200mm f2.8L in case I need a long lens. I don't care about longer focal lengths usually so I can cover them with a slower zoom.

    Which leads me to a problem...this camera is much better for stills than for video and my widest EF mount lens is a 50mm f1.8 that's broken. I want to use the 5D for snapshots (pictures of cats, vacation photos, etc.) and maybe the occasional photo that I delude myself into thinking is actually good. So I was thinking of getting the 24-70mm f2.8 since it would be nice for video, too, but the price is ridiculous! How is the 28-135mm as an alternative walkabout lens? Does it have a compatible profile to remove vignetting, distortion, and CA (I shoot JPEG)? It's like $250 used. Is it close enough to the 24-105mm or 24-70mm at normal stops that I can feel okay putting it on my vastly more expensive camera? I can't afford the 24-70mm and I wouldn't use the 24-105mm IS for video because it has too much distortion for my taste, though of course if it were affordable it would be a top choice.

    Thanks!
     
  2. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #2
    I don't really see the point of coupling a $3k body to such a mediocre lens (note that the review I've linked to is for a rather low resolution crop body, the same lens will do much worse on a full frame body with a smaller pixel pitch).
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    TheReef

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2007
    Location:
    NSW, Australia.
    #3
    Look into the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8, it's great value and excellent performance.

    They've also released a newer version - the 24-70mm f/2.8 with Vibration Control.
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #4
    The onion bokeh and ridiculous falloff has turned me off from this guy and for the price I would go with a Canon lens anyway. I have a Tamron I like, but I do not like the bokeh on their midrange zooms.

    How bad is the 28-135mm at normal stops? Does the 5D III have a profile to remove CA? If I ever wanted to make a print it would probably be at f8 or f11 anyway, deep focus stuff--and in that case IS is more beneficial than speed but CA can be a big problem. Other than that mostly cats. It's about $200 used next to the 24-70mm's $1200 used.

    I loved the 18-55mm IS on APS-C, though I eventually upgraded to the 17-55mm IS and preferred it.
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #5
    What's the reason you want to stick to a Canon lens which is, according to reviews, mediocre at best? Even though I'm a Nikonian, and half of the lenses in my arsenal are third-party lenses. There are quite a few gems amongst third-party lenses, ones that are cheaper, better and/or better built than what you can get from the original manufacturer.
     
  6. Policar, May 8, 2012
    Last edited: May 8, 2012

    thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #6
    It's six times the price is the issue and the overall aesthetic is just meh. Canon's lenses may measure poorly but I've had good luck in terms of look--the trade offs Canon makes are generally smart ones. Tamron does some amazing stuff (best image stabilization I've seen and good sharpness) but usually bokeh is rough in their wide zooms. And the 28-75mm f2.8 seems to have very blurry corners and of course no IS.

    I guess all I'm asking is does the 5D III have a profile for the 28-135mm IS (again, I shoot JPEG almost exclusively) and how bad is this lens compared with the L lenses at deeper stops (f8, etc.)? It's a tenth the price ($200 used).

    I use my 5D mostly for video (with manual focus lenses), but I'd like to start using it for snapshots, too. For serious stuff I can rent and I have the 50mm f1.8 already for low light. Am I making a mistake buying this thing or will it be just as mediocre as I hope and no worse?
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2001
    Location:
    Fukuoka, Japan
    #7
    The lack of IS is more than made up for by the faster initial aperture. And lack of sharpness in the corners is also overrated: the subject will in all likelihood be close to the center.
    Even though I'm not the type to take pictures of bathroom tiles and such, you should really look at some of the reviews of the 28-135: it's really not a good lens. You're putting a mediocre lens on the highest-resolving Canon body, I simply think it's a bad idea to put a $200 lens on a $3000 body. Probably, the best advice is to save up more money and get a lens that's suitable for such a drool-worthy body :D :p
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #8
    I have one of those, and...

    It's a horrible lens. I should have returned it the day after I bought it. I keep it as a reminder that large and fabled optical companies make utter junk at times.

    The 24-105, despite its distortion, is miles better, or you can look for a third party lens that suits your needs.
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    #9
    Thanks for the feedback... Fwiw, I'm very interested in outdoor snapshots (landscape, etc.) so corner sharpness at deep stops is really crucial and curvature of field bugs me...

    I guess I'll save up for something else. Too bad, seemed like a nice lens in terms of focal length and IS.

    In the mean time I'll use the 28-80mm I found on a Rebel 2000 kit and drive everyone around me nuts.
     

Share This Page