Hi, I've been using the EF 28-105 f3.5-4.5 II for almost two years now, travelling, hiking or just wandering and have been mainly satisfied with it. I do however have a collection of blurry slides due to speeds below 1/60 as I happen to take photos in dim light. I am considering to replace my 28-105 with the 28-135 IS, for this reason.

Now, as they say that the IS doesn't help with the moving subjects (including the wind, water, people, etc.) I have a second -slightly more expensive- idea to rather complement my 28-105 with e.g. two primes, the 50/1.8 (or 50/1.4 if quality is much better) and 100/2.0 .

Also, the optical improvement from 28-105 to 28-135 seems still disputed (while I guess primes do improve contrast/sharpness/etc.) and speed is slower on IS, but does that matter?

Please, give comments... thanks

-- Aan Lin (aljazule@email.si), April 09, 2002

Answers

Hi There:

I think I may be of some help. I have both the 50 1.4 and the 28-135 IS. Image quality in the 28-135 is quite good, and I have gotten crisp pictures down to 1/15th of a second, BUT, it can't compare to the 50. I love the 50 1.4. It is excellent in low light, images are SUPER sharp, and the large aperture lets me get really creative. Plus, the 28-135 can be a bit bulky at times. Personally, I would keep your 28-105 for the long end, and get the 28 2.8 or the 28 1.8 USM instead of the 100/2.0 That will give you a lot less distortion than the 28-105 at 28. But, keep in mind, that is my opinion. I find that I would like a wide angle compact lens in my bag.

Hope that helps, John

-- John (wolverine@nf.sympatico.ca), April 09, 2002.

I've owned the 28-105 USM and now have the 28-135 USM IS, which I prefer due to the IS. But it is bigger & bulkier. Image quality is about the same unless you're trying to hand hold with slower shutter speeds. For less money you could buy a lightweight monopod and get nearly the same advantages though.

I also own 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses. These are much better in low light. Not just for hand hold ability, but the larger apertures are better at focusing in low light as well. And no one's denying the fact that they're sharper.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), April 09, 2002.

I see. As I understand the quality improvement is much better with the set of two, three primes. And I am quite picky about colour/sharpness/distortion. Then the question is whether this offsets the price increase and convenience loss. (as the 28-70 L costs about 250$ more than two primes, while the 28-135 costs 250$ less)

I do have a rather compact tripod, its just not convenient to put it down as the nice shot comes by.

Is the IS the ultimate solution to the one-or-two-lenses travelling bag?

Thanks again, please comment!

-- Aan (aljazule@email.si), April 10, 2002.

I own this rather odd combination of lenses: 17-35 f/2.8L, 50mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.2L, 135mm f/2L. The zoom gives me freedom and versatility in the wides, where it counts for me; the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 is fine from f/2 onward; the 85 and 135 are the ultimate in portrait lenses, which is what I really need. Put your money where you need supreme excellence, compromise where you don't.

Peter Hughes Photography

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), April 10, 2002.

the 28-135 is longer and with IS "faster" but you probably won't notice any qualitative difference.

if you want the best quality (which i assume since you're shooting slide film) you have 2 choices:

1. face the pain and buy L-series zooms

2. pick a selection of primes that suits your style

thats really the only way - consumer zooms don't cut it and pro zooms hurt :)

carl

-- carl weller (carlweller@yahoo.com), April 11, 2002.

28-105 vs 28-135:

http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html

28-135 vs 50/1.4:

http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/zoomvsprime.html

-- Steve Dunn (steved@ussinc.com), April 11, 2002.

Thanks for answers! I guess I will stay with my 28-105 and add two quality primes, probably 50/1.4 and 28/1.8 . They are still cheaper than 28-70 L and I believe of equal quality. Does anyone know the quality difference between these and cheaper primes (like 50/1.8 and 28/2.8)?

-- Aan (aljazule@email.si), April 15, 2002.