about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
182 534762 Sep 11, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $714.73
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.44
8.16
7.8
ef_28-135_35_1_

Specifications:
Standard zoom lens with an Image Stabilizer and high zoom ratio. With the Image Stabilizer turned on, you can obtain sharp, natural-looking pictures in dim lighting without using flash or a tripod. Very handy for places where flash is prohibited. Uses ring-type USM for swift, silent autofocus and full-time manual focus. Closest focusing distance is 20 in. (50 cm).


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
       †††
tmr_wa
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 7, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1023
Review Date: Dec 1, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros:
Cons:

Mixed reviews on this site had me a bit worried about the 28-135 IS lens. Despite the reviews, I remained very attracted by the range of the 28-135 on the 1.6x 10D; a 45-216mm lens encompasses my most used focal lengths for landscape photography, as well as most of my family snapshots that result in prints no larger than 8x10 inches. I have been relying on single focal length, prime lenses, or the 17-40/4 L to fill this range. Yet, even with the 1.6x, the 17-40 zoom just wasnít long enough for most of my uses. The 17-40 zoom wasnít very useful for family snapshots as I donít typically like using focal lengths under 40mm for this type of photography. The primes are relatively small and lightweight, and are, of course, capable of producing very high quality images. But, for landscape photography Iím typically stopping down to f/8 and changing prime lenses in the field is hardly convenient.

So, I finally went for the 28-135. Letís get the negatives out of the way first. The lens is not up to L-build quality. The zooming barrel of the lens wobbles and its design does appear to be prone to sucking in dust. The lens isnít as sharp as my prime lenses, and the color and contrast are lacking in comparison to L-series lenses. The manual focus ring is very small, but I would not use manual focus very often with this zoom. I donít like paying extra for the hood, but alas, this is standard Canon practice with non-L lenses.

Now I can address the positives. The lens isnít too large for a zoom with this range Ė very similar in size to the 17-40. The lens is sharper than I expected, given user reports. Maybe I just got lucky? Of course, when used wide open, this lens isnít as sharp as a Canon prime, but who would expect this type of performance in a zoom? Even wide open, the lens is more than sharp enough to make small to medium-sized prints and produce images for the web display. The range of the lens is considerable, and it covers my most frequently used focal lengths. Image stabilization is the real deal, although itís no substitute for a tripod. I almost always use a tripod for landscapes, but this lens makes for a great travel lens. For instance, I didnít have my tripod with me when I shot this image at sunset, at 135mm:

http://www.pbase.com/tmr_wa/image/69004669


In sum, I think the 28-135 is a very good deal and I look forward to using it more extensively in landscape applications. If I lost this one, I wouldnít hesitate to get another; my total expense for two 28-135 zooms would still be well under the cost of a new 24-105/L.


Dec 1, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tmr_wa to your Buddy List  
Agatep
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
Review Date: Nov 19, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

Pros: USM Range
Cons:
Soft-Copy

The copy I owed was awful. I compared it with my 28-105 and it was not even in the same ballpark.

I had a bad copy and this leaves me with a bad taste. I'm sure that the good copies are fine, but beware!


Nov 19, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Agatep to your Buddy List  
mathie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13
Review Date: Nov 18, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $420.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Affordable, IS works, focal length (28-135) is good for a general purpose lens
Cons:
IQ in low light, 28 is not wide enough for 1.6x bodies

Recommend for beginners like myself, great focal length, IS works well but IQ in low light is definitely not L.

Nov 18, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mathie to your Buddy List  
dSchamp
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 107
Review Date: Nov 10, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Surpringly sharp, light, IS, won't break the bank
Cons:
Build, sticky zoom

I am in full agreement with 2thfixr below. This is an under rated lens IF you get a good copy. I have three L's (24-70, 17-40 & 70-200) and have used several others, and in comparison (price) this lens just continues to impress. Because of its weight and range it is my primary walk around lens. If I can only take one, 95% of the time its this one. Based on the ratings and comments about this lens I'm convinced there are good copies and not-so-good copies. I'm lucky enough to have a good one and there's no way I'll give it up. dS

Nov 10, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dSchamp to your Buddy List  
Mark Green
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 23, 2006
Location: Bahamas
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Decent range for most things plus IS very good
Cons:
Bit soft and can tend to over expose

I bought this for a shoot of some properties from a helicopter. Got some great shots and I'ms ure that the IS helped. Just spent a week at Disney too and this was the only lens I used. IS was great for some of those nightime firework shots. It's not an L lens and as such, some shots are a bit soft. I did some shots the other day with a polariser (expensive because of the size) and the images were superb - calendar worthy. Anyway, I think it's a pretty good lens for the price - versatile range and IS is useful.

Nov 2, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Mark Green to your Buddy List  
sirinek
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Oct 24, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: cost, more versitile than the 18-55 kit lens, great general-purpose lens for the beginner or the photographer on a budget.
Cons:
slow. poor for low light or indoor pictures without flash or abundant sunlight, unless you use a tripod


I think that for a beginner who is just getting started with an SLR, this is a great all-purpose lens. It was my 2nd lens that I bought. The first was the 50mm f/1.8 just because it was super cheap and I was still deciding which other lens to buy as my "general-purpose" lens.

My pictures aren't the sharpest, certainly not to the degree of many of the images I see at my local camera club. Since I am just learning, I understand much of that is my fault, but part is also the lens. I consistently get sharper images with my 100mm macro, and 17-40 L-class lens, but they are certainly more pricy and thus ought to be better! Not to mention one is a prime.

IS is a cool concept, but I dont take as much stock in it as the marketing department. I dont know if my lens has the 2 or 3-stop IS (they claim they have 4 stop IS coming out soon!) I'll skate by with one stop slower than 1/focal but hesitate on going further. I haven't done any serious testing to prove to myself how well the IS works on this lens though, so I can't say much more.

I'd say if you can get this lens (mine was lightly used) it will be a good investment. I dont regret purchasing it, especially after taking classes. My pictures with this and my other lenses are noticably better once I learned how to use them more effectively.

When you get to be a better photographer (or hit the lottery or you are just rich) then go spring for a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. I'm hoping Santa brings me one!



Oct 24, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sirinek to your Buddy List  
Carl Walker
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 14, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 14, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

Pros: Good features like AF, MF, IS Inexpensive lightweight, good walk around lens. Good zoom range
Cons:
Poor low light lens Sharpness could be improved

I bought this lens about 1.5 years ago and have used it as my only lens since. The lens can produce excellent results however one must be aware of its limitations. Image sharpness is one limitation but I find that it is decent with only some sharpning required in photoshop for most pictures. Even with IS the lens does require a tripod or something to stabilize it in low light. It does a good job on outdoor pictures with lots of light. Indoor or low light is only adequate. The lens is light which makes it very portable. The zoom range is good for most picture taking. I use it for mostly outdoor panoramic and nature shots. I would like to get a telephoto lens for wildlife though. Bottom line: This is a good starter lens for the money but if you want better image quality and have the money you should probably get an L series lens.

Oct 14, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Carl Walker to your Buddy List  
peddr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 88
Review Date: May 23, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Range, IS, lightweight, fast focusing. Very good when you want to take only one lens that will even allow low light shooting in a theather. Price is fair, especially when compared to the new Canon 17-55 IS 2.8. Fairly sharp.
Cons:
Poor construction. The barrel wobbles when extended. Not a fast lens, but that of course would make it heavier. 24-135, like the Tamron would make it better.

This is a good all around lens for the right use. I prefer this lens when I am going out for the day and do not wish to bring a bag with gear. It has enough flexibility to allow you shoot candids on a 1,6x crop and yet go wide enough for street scenes and limited landscapes.

The lens is sharp enough and not too heavy or long to become cumbersome. When I bought the Tamron 28-75mm I was going to sell it, but did not because of the added range. Perfect for Disney as an only lens.

May not be up to the expectations of a portrait photographer, but for the enthusiast and amateur that is not too demanding, this lens will earn it's place in the camera bag for it's versatility.


May 23, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add peddr to your Buddy List  
cmugphoto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 182
Review Date: Apr 16, 2006 Recommend? no | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 5 

Pros: Inexpensive, Image Stabilization.
Cons:
Very, Very, Very soft even at f/8. Color gamut is rather limited. Feels cheaply built. Zoom creep can be intrusive. Zoom barrel can get "jammed" at times, Canon told me it was normal.

Folks, I think writing a negative review about a product you own is tough. But for the sake of honesty and being helpful towards others, I have to be critical of this piece of glass. For one, it does not get decently sharp until f/11-f/16 which is fine for day-time photography, but goes to the can as soon as there are less-than-ideal light conditions. Then the color reproduction is "acceptable" which in essence means fine for the common folk, but unacceptable for the enthusiast/professional. The zoom barrel can get "jammed" at times and won't let go until I release the shutter.

In short, this is a good replacement to the kit lens that come with all Canon cameras, but it's a far cry from what you would expect.

Best,
CMP


Apr 16, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add cmugphoto to your Buddy List  
mhutchinson
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 18, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 22
Review Date: Apr 2, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $374.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: clean, clear colors, fairly fast, quite, very good range, and not too heavy
Cons:
zoom is not as smooth as I would like and if it started at 22mm or 24mm would be almost perfect

This was one of the first lenses that I bought for my 20D with the intention of it being a great walk around lens. If the range started at 22mm or 24mm I could leave my 20-35mm at home. Last vacation the lens was on the camera 97% of the time and the upper range was good enough to shoot any of those charactors on stage at Walt Disney World.

The pictures come out amazingly sharp and clear with colors being very accurate, close to the sharpness of some of my faster primes. I have seldom had to alter many pictures with a photo tool (except sizing and crops), and have not experienced any of the softness I have seen with other reviewers.

The zoom is quite and USM focus is fairly fast, I have never had this lens seek yet (unlike my 50mm macro). However the zoom itself can feel as though it might be a little smoother at times with a very slight amount of play in the barrel at 135mm. The IS is great for low light and night shots or when shooting over bumpy trails.

Overall, this is my favorite travel lens and I would highly recommend it for anyone not looking to make an investment in L glass. I have been using this lens for several months and have not yet been disapointed by it.


Apr 2, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mhutchinson to your Buddy List  
woodburyb
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 5
Review Date: Mar 27, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

Pros: Sharp, nice colors, fast & quiet USM, good range, IS.
Cons:
Zoom is not that smooth, IS is just okay.

I sold the Sigma 18-125mm that I purchase originally with my XT and bought this used here.
Compared to the Sigma it focuses more quickly and much quieter, it is sharper and has better colors. I'm quite happy with the sharpness and colors and very happy with focusing speed and accuracy. The IS is just okay, I've not yet seen a significant advantage to it.
At a family gathering over the weekend a son and daughter took a bunch of indoor shots of family and friends. Most were keepers, some needed little, if any, post processing, the rest didn't need much, and in the mix they got some beautiful portraits of family (especially children). Also this past weekend, used it on a ski day with my 3 1/2 year old grandaughter, her mom got some great outdoors shots with it. It is shaping up to be a very versatile lens.
Great walk around lens, however, I've missed the extra 10mm on the wide end a few times so far.
Recommended.


Mar 27, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add woodburyb to your Buddy List  
PokGuy
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 2
Review Date: Mar 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $414.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: IS, USM Never leaves the Camera.
Cons:
None, you get what you pay.

I have a 20D and this was the first lense I picked up, i'm glad I did because this lense hasnt left the body. crisp clear pictures on full zoom, the Is is great. I can go on and on about this lense but the bottom line is if you want a lense that has a little bit of everything this is the lense to get.

Mike


Mar 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PokGuy to your Buddy List  
jchxc
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 25, 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 25, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $460.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: range 28-135. It's quite all I need IS ( handy since I drink too much balck coffee ) 3,5 ain't bad.
Cons:
end of extending the zoom is "hard" ( loud "clack" ) Purple fringing ( CA ) is pretty bad in sunny, overexposed situations. Tends to overexpose, so see above.

I bought it because I busted my kitlens. ( which sucked anyway )

First images came out overexposed, and quite a lot of CA. Shots on manual turn out pretty good. Maybe keep it on manual, or maybe I must get back to the shop for a new copy. I am quite an amature, so this review isn't worth too much but anyway. For the money you get everything you need.


Mar 25, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add jchxc to your Buddy List  
misanthropic a
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 448
Review Date: Mar 21, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $335.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Great range, IS, USM, decent macro, inner focus.
Cons:
Plastic, price, stiff zoom, not a linear f-stop across range.

Purchased as a walk-around lens, which it does decently. The colors are ok, contrast is a bit lacking though. The IS is very useful for people like me with shakey hands, though the IS takes some getting used to, though it does force you to slow down your shots instead of just snapping. My copy isn't that sharp wide open, but even wide open has almost no CA and stopped down gets decently sharp. Mine seems to also have a very stiff zoom ring, and is kind of "jerky" and very much not smooth in its action. Overall, for a walk-around, it does its job well.

Mar 21, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add misanthropic a to your Buddy List  
2thfixr
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Dec 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 249
Review Date: Mar 16, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $449.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, extremely useful range, great IS, truly an under-rated lens.
Cons:
None at all

This is one of the first lenses that I bought when I switched to Canon from Nikon. I bought a 20d and then a 5d and now I have a 1DsMkII. I ended up buying a bunch of L glass and put this lens away because everybody knows that L glass is much better right? Well, that's what I assumed. I pretty much used my 24-70 2.8 L all of the time and never used the 28-135 IS because it didn't have the speed and it wasn't an L. After a year in the closet, I finally got it out because I was going somewhere and I didn't want to take any extra lenses. The 24-70 just doesn't have the reach to be an ideal walk around lens. Anyways, I took some shots and when I came home and looked at them, I was quite stunned. The shots came out better than my 24-70L. In fact, I sent in my 24-70L to Canon for calibration the very next day. I really think that the IS does wonders and makes every shot tack sharp. I absolutely love this lens. It's one of my favorites next to my 17-40L and my 135L prime. If I didn't own this lens, I would buy a 24-105 f4 L but since I have it, I feel no desire to get the L glass. I think it depends on the copy that you get but if you get a good one. Keep it and don't ever give it up. Probably the most useful lens in my bag!

Mar 16, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add 2thfixr to your Buddy List  
CommonWealth
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 29, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 66
Review Date: Mar 15, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

Pros: IS & USM , Build quality , good focal length , decent Focusing Distance .
Cons:
Not Wide Enough on 1.6X , Slow lens , price

The price is crazy on it for what it is,but i've always thought the 28-135's.28-105's and the 35-105's were all little over priced anyway.It is a great lens in build ,it feels tough too although i don't think i would like to challenge that with its price tag and all.I found it a great walk around lens as many have stated so far but i just don't see the big deal in IS other then i can shoot in a room with day light and get a relatively sharp shot and on that same coin i thought my Canon EF 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 1987 vintage was a much sharper lens and it did'nt have IS.

Heres a sample of the IS anyway
http://www.pbase.com/maxjenkins/image/56405598

bottom line its only as good as the price you got it,and if you have to sell it (which i have) its resale price holds well.


Mar 15, 2006
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add CommonWealth to your Buddy List  

†††



Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
182 534762 Sep 11, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $714.73
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.44
8.16
7.8
ef_28-135_35_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next