I currently have the EF 28-105mm. I've been reading alot on the 28-135MM IS...Is the 28-135MM IS that much better of a lens to warrant the upgrade???

-- C. Lipton (chuxter31@adelphia.net), January 21, 2002

Answers

As far as optical quality, no. They are very close. Obviously, the EF 28-135 3.5- 5.6 IS USM has a little more reach, but is much bigger and heavier. However, if you like to shoot hand held in low light, the IS feature is a Godsend and is worth every penny of the $450 you pay. Of course, it won't replace a sturdy tripod, but I get sharp images at 1/15 or 1/30 any day of the week while racked out to 135 mm. If I brace the camera against a tree or other solid object, I've gotten sharp images at 1/2 with the self-timer (yeah, I left the 'pod in the car trunk).

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), January 21, 2002.

The 28-135 is certainly a better lens, but in most pictures, you'll see relatively little difference in sharpness. IS is wonderful for certain types of shots (if you and the subject are both stationary) and useless for others (if either you or the subject is moving). The extra reach is nice to have. The lens is big enough to block the pop-up flash in some cases, quite a bit heavier, reduces battery life (because IS needs to draw power from the camera's battery), much more expensive, and uses bigger (and more expensive) filters.

For a lens test comparing these two, drop by my site at http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), January 22, 2002.

I had a 28-105 Canon for five or six years, then sold it to buy a 28-135. I sold the 28-135 in less than a year and bought another 28-105. I found the 28-135 to be too big and klutzy for my use, and as best I could tell, it is not a true 135mm at the long end -- more like 115 or 120mm. The 28-105 is a real sleeper -- probably the best zoom lens made for the money. I sell 20x30 prints from slides made with my 28-105 and Fuji RDP-100 film.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 22, 2002.