Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS...?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Cloud9, Sep 5, 2006.

  1. Cloud9 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #1
    Whose got one and can tell me how bad I need it?

    Right now my work horse lense is the tamron 28-85 f/2.8 (might have the zoom slightly off with wine in me right now.).

    I do weddings as a second camera. My works good. But given the cravings for photojournalistic shots alot happens on the fly. I want IS technology, but I wonder what I sacrifice with dropping down to a slower lense at f3.5

    I would love to hear what people on this site have to say about the lense, and the situations that you use them in. Working with natural light is a big deal with the type of work I do, a fast lense is essential. The Economic Gods that live in my bank account must be appeased though. So do tell.

    Hell, If you also have the 17-55 f/2.8 is tell me about that too.

    Thanks
     
  2. davegoody macrumors 6502

    davegoody

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire, England
    #2
    Set your heights a little higher !

    I use the Canon 28-300L f3.5-5.6 IS lens and it is FANTASTIC. I too shoot weddings and for the most part, find that shooting using the one lens for the whole day is more than possible. It would be nicer if it were f2.8 all the way, but at £1700 (around $3000 US) any more would have been ridiculous !

    Good luck !
     
  3. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #3
    I'd stick with what you have.

    Yes, the IS gets you more than a few stops, but having a smaller max aperture is going to hurt you more. The IS will eliminate hand shaking effects, but fact is that you need a fast shutter speed if people are moving around, and IS won't help you with that.
     
  4. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #4
    I honestly think that you will have problems with lighting. Save and get something faster. I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and it's incredible. Pricey, but great image quality.
     
  5. -hh macrumors 68020

    -hh

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2001
    Location:
    NJ Highlands, Earth
    #5
    I picked up the EF 28-135 IS several years ago, as a step up from a Tamron 28-200. Overall, I liked the 'step up' that this provided, and it was a reasonably good 'all around' lens.

    I ended up augmenting that lens with the (now superceded) 75-300 IS, which I've since superceded with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x teleconverter.

    In the meantime, I've also gone wider with a Tokina 19-35mm f/so-so. For the most part, my interests have gone to these extremes, for either landscapes (WA), or wildlife (telephoto).

    As a result, I've minimized my bag down to just two lenses - 1 wide + 1 long, which means that if I need anything between 35mm to 70mm, I "zoom with my feet" ... leaving the 28-135 IS at home shaves a pound.

    In the past 6 months, I've only shot one roll of film through it, and I can't recall if I've even ever mounted it on my 20D dSLR. Because I've not been using it, I've been tempted to sell it. Ditto the 75-300 IS.

    Overall, I felt that the IS gave enough of a boost to avoid having to move up to ISO 400 film (yeah, I'm starting to date myself). Granted, one can argue that if the lens were faster, higher ISO speeds wouldn't be as necessary, but f/stops also effect bokeh and DOF: having to use a low f/stop forces a minimized DOF, but a low f/stop also means the capability to throw the background out of focus, to isolate the subject ... my gut thinks that the ability to go to a low f/ to minimize DOF is probably important to you.

    My suggestion would be to check through your existing images' EXIF data to see how often you're shooting wider (lower f/) than the 28-135 can open...that probably will answer an important question for you.


    -hh
     
  6. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #6
    You all have given great answers. I appreciate the advice. I'll probably wait a bit before I jump the gun on the lense.

    But if others have opinions also keep em coming.
     
  7. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #7
    f/3.5 is not bad but the lens becomes an f/5.6 lens as soon as you move the zoom setting. Think about what f/5.6 does to your strobe's range.. it cuts it in half. You need big strobe to shoot with a slow telephoto.

    Yes the IS gives you two stops but the f/5.6 lens is two stops slower then your f/2.8 lens so you end up even. But then the DOF is greater so you get these distracting backgrounds. Better to just spring for the big 80-200 f/2.8 lens so you can isolate the subject with the f/2.8 stop.
     
  8. Trekkie macrumors 6502a

    Trekkie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2002
    Location:
    Wake Forest, NC
    #8
    I started out in digital SLR world with the 28-135 IS.

    First off, you don't tell us what camera you're using, does make a bit of a difference. Are you on a 1.6x or a 1.0x frame size?

    Do you use the f/2.8 for very shallow DOF when shooting portraits? If so, the IS isn't going to help with that, and you don't want to switch.

    Are you wanting better hand held images with a long DOF at a slow shutterspeed because you need a broader depth of field? IS will help you with that.

    There is no trade off for aperture. The 28-135 IS though is a nice lens. It's not a replacement for the Tamron. the 24-70 f/2.8L is. That's my baby.

    IS is not a 'stop people from moving out of the frame' tool and it doesn't give you a shallower DOF when shooting. Only apeture does that.

    You don't need a faster lens, you need more light. What do you use for supplemental lighting?
     
  9. trudd macrumors regular

    trudd

    Joined:
    May 27, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
    #9
    Sounds like it is a 1.6x considering he asks for opinions on the 17-55 f/2.8

    I've been using my 28-135 on my 20D on again off again for the past year and a half. It's great for traveling, but not quite wide enough for some of my needs. The 1.6x crop is too high for me, but that's more of a personal thing.

    I'd much rather have f/2.8 or even a consistent f/4 rather than a variable aperture.
     
  10. SpankyPenzaanz macrumors 6502a

    SpankyPenzaanz

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #10
    I have the 28-135IS a 100/2.8macro and 28/2.8

    I barely use the 28-135..."My Precious" is the 100 for just about every situation
    I bought the 28-135 thinking i could make it my work horse and it just didn't have the f-stops for me nor response but it has decent optics but nothing to write home to mother about

    Let me know if you are interested in buying the 28-135IS
     
  11. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #11
    I have the 430ex flash as supplemental light and I am shooting with the 20d. But often times durring a wedding I am not in a situation where I can use flash, or there are times that I can use flash but do not want to. Last weekend the reception dance had some fabulous lights going on the floor. I wanted to preserve their colors and so I had to use a fast apreture and iso and slower shutter speed to get the effect I wanted. I would use tripod more to deal with poor light, but I move around to much for it to make much sense.

    I like the idea of the 28-135 because it is inexpensive, because there are moments I want to zoom in and I dont have time to switch lenses, and because sometimes as I take a shot of a wedding moment I have less then seconds to capture it, durring those fast paced moments my hands shake a little. If IS can help then thats awesome. But if the variable apreture does not give me the light allowance I need then its a 400 dollar failed experiment. I need the AF to know what to do in poor light as well. some lenses are better then others at that. It may be that I just keep going with what I got and and spend 2k next year on the 28-200 f/2.8 IS. But I want to maximise what I can now, and someone at a camera shop told me that the 28-135 lense was a "workhorse", different salesman at different location of the same shop told me other wise, and also talked trash about my tamron. So I am about ready to chill on the bank account and maybe just get more "creative". But if someone wants to offer that lense to me for a real good price i'll consider.
     
  12. SpankyPenzaanz macrumors 6502a

    SpankyPenzaanz

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #12
    the workhorse comment - while it is he is just trying to make the sale. I fhe really listened at anypoint in your conversation then he should told you to save up and wait till nfl fall promo start in about a month. He talks trash about the tamron because he is either a lens snob or trying to force you into a sale or both. I say hold if you can and just get a great L-series. It will be well worht it
     
  13. Cloud9 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2005
    Location:
    between flesh and thought
    #13
    Thank you all.

    I am gonna chill till I can afford the l series lenses. I feel better about it.

    Thanks
     

Share This Page