Has anyone used the Canon 28-70 2.8 & the Canon 28-135 IS lenses?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

I have several lenses for my A2. I have the really cheap Canon 22-55 mm zoom, the Canon 135 2.8 sf, the Canon 70-200 2.8 L zoom and a Tamron 28-200 zoom. I love the size and weight of the Tamron but am not convinced about the quality of the images. The 70-200 photos I have taken are MUCH sharper edge to edge at all apertures. The 70-200 is sometimes too big and too tele for some situations I shoot in. I'm thinking of selling the Tamron and getting either the Canon 28-70 2.8 L or the Canon 28-135 IS lens. I know that the 28-70 is a superior lens but was wondering if anyone out there had shot any pictures with both lenses. IS appeals to me and also saving weight in my backpack would be nice. The 28-70 is also big bucks! I wouldn't mind feedback from anyone who is using the 28-135 IS.

-- David Hickey (fido@home.com), July 17, 1999

Answers

I've used the 28-70L for about a year now and just purchased the 28-135IS lens. (I bought the IS lens (second-hand) mainly to replace my 28-105 as a "walk-around" lens, not to replace the 28-70L.) While I haven't owned the IS lens for even one month yet, I'll give my first impressions: I'm leaving on a 2 week trip this weekend and plan to give the IS lens a good workout.  I'm also bringing my 28-70L, but will only carry the IS lens for long treks.  I'll evaluate the images from both lenses and their respective useability.....then I'll decide which whether to keep the 28-105 or the IS lens (the 28-70L stays no matter what!).  I think that if the IS lens cannot also replace the 70-210/3.5-4.5, then it goes.

-- Dave Herzstein (dherzstein@juno.com), July 20, 1999.

David, I had the 28-135IS for a little while to take some test shot photos. I have the Tamron 28-200 Super and am looking to replace it. Here are my thoughts...

At a recent wedding a friend and I took some pictures, he was using a Tamron 28-200 super while I was using the recently acquired Canon 28-135 IS. We both have A2 bodies and were both using 540ez flashes. The resulting prints (from Fuji NPH and Reala) showed that the Canon lens was definitely "sharper". Now I realize that with prints you have all kinds of variations with the printer, but these were sent to the same lab at the same time. What I ought to do is check the negatives with a loupe.

Now to my testing. I shot a test target that I created using Kodak Elitechrome 100 slide film. I then got out my two lenses for testing (Tamron super and Canon IS). I mounted both on tripods and took shots of the target at 28mm, 50mm, 100mm, 135mm. I used the maximum aperture the lens would allow at each focal length, then at f/8, then at f/16. I insured the lighting was the same and same shutter speeds were used. I consistently metered off a Kodak grey card for consistency as well.

The results I would like to post on the internet sometime soon, but for now I'll just have to tell you my thoughts from looking at the slides.

Sharpness - The Canon IS has a very slight edge. Vignetting - The Canon IS definitely has the edge here, the Tamron showed dark corners when shot wide open, the Canon was only faintly noticeable.

To test the IS ability, I shot numerous controlled photos of the target at 28,50,100 and 135mm's. Again I used differing apertures, the smallest being f/16 and shutter speed was at 1/125th sec. At 28 and 50mm, I could not tell between IS on and off, even at 1/125th. At 100mm I could just begin to tell the IS was helping at 1/125th. At 135mm, the IS was extraordinary mainting sharp lines and characters while with IS off, the slide was blurry due to hand shake at 1/125th.

My summary is this. I have since returned the 28-135 IS lens. I decided not to pay another $500 for a lens that only has a slight advantage over my Tamron. Yes, the IS really helps on the longer end of the focal length (>100mm), but if I'm going to be using those focal lengths, I'd rather invest in a 70-200 f/2.8 L and have the better DOF. Both the Tamron and the Canon are already at f/5.6 by the time you get to 100mm. For portraits, I don't even want to consider the Tamron, my Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro takes much better pic's at all aperture's.

My suggestion to you, and choice for myself would probably be to get the Canon 28-105 USM. This seems to be one of the best consumer grade lenses available. I go backpacking as well, but my philosophy is a bit different, I don't mind humping in another 20 lbs or more of photo gear, yeah, it's heavy, but the resulting photos when I come back are outstanding. For a backpacking set up, this would be my reccomendation, the Canon 24-85 USM, and the Canon 75-300 IS lenses. These are both lightweight and outstanding lenses, and the IS is much more useful in the 100-300mm range.

Good luck

Bill

-- Bill Meyer (william_meyer@stortek.com), July 29, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ