 |
|
|
Rob Ernsting
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Nov 3, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
None what so ever.
|
|
Cons:
|
A dog of a lens for the price to pay. Soft never real sharp only if you shoot well lit daylight objects at f 11 or smaller aperture, f16. A waist of money.
|
|
|
Focusing is slow, the tube is always extending when carrying the camera. Have troubled with this lens so much while not being able to afford a better lens. Making endless tests on tripod and blaming myself until I was convinced that it is poor manufacture that causes this poor result. The IS is expensive and not really a benefit.
Until I got a 17-40mm L USM I have made poor soft pictures. I finally got rid of it and bought a 70-200mm L USM in addition.
Canon lenses are poor performers unless one pays through the nose for an L type lens. It is a shame that Canon still brings out low quality prosumer lenses for a lot of money.
|
|
 Nov 3, 2004
|
|
DamienB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 20
|
|
Review Date: Oct 24, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good zoom range, IS, can be found much cheaper than RRP
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality, sharpness, slow at the long end
|
|
|
A versatile and very useful good value lens. IS has been a boon for air to air photography, where it helps cancel out some of the camera ship's vibration (but I do mean *some*!).
It's never really as sharp as I'd like, and the construction is very plasticky and 'cheap' feeling - the way the extended barrel wobbles from side to side at full zoom is particularly worrying. But given the price of anything that even compares, it's sufficed for my needs up til now.
If it was a 28-135 f/2.8 IS, a bit sharper, and felt more solidly made it'd be perfect...
(price paid in UK £)
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2004
|
|
Mr645
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1386
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $300.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range, not too costly
|
|
Cons:
|
Needs to be at F8 and smaller for good sharpness
|
|
|
My decade old 28-105 is ready to fall apart and I saw this 28-135 at the local repair shop. Anyway, I wish this lens was a bit faster, at F3.5-F5.6 it needs a lot of light. The IS feature helps but typically when light levels are low, you also open the aperture. This lens is not tack sharp at or near F5.6 so the IS is not as useful as I expected. It's a good everyday lens to keep on the camera, but not built to
"L" standards, but of course it does not cost like an "L" lens.
Jon
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2004
|
|
enigmatics
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 5, 2004
Location: Israel
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
|
I replaced 28-135 after half-year using on 17-40 f4 and started
to feel myself realy comfortable.
I guess Canon's engeneers need to learn from Olympus how to make
middle class zoom lense with such focal range.Before my Canon 10D I had Olympus E-10 with 35-140 mm lense - so this Oly lense can easy
bit 28-135 even without IS and USM!!!
|
|
|
Jul 5, 2004
|
|
cgregb
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $429.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Price, Image Stabilization, good walk-around lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Not "L" glass, low contrast focus
|
|
|
This is not an "L" glass lens. So don't expect outstanding photos, just great ones. If this lens doesn't push you to "L" glass, nothing will. With the light weight and good range for a walk-around lens, you will have this on your camera much of the time. If you appreciate the quality of this lens, "L" glass is in your future. If not, you have not spent a lot of money to find out.
The IS feature allowed me to shoot a building at 9:00PM lit with incansdescent light in back of a reflecting lake, hand held ( 1 second). The picture was incredibly clear (not perfect). The quality of the pictures with this lens compared to the 300D kit lens is dramatically better. This lens is a great value for the money. My lens doesn't focus well in low contrast situations, though. But you can use it in manual mode and it works fine.
While not a professional lens, most prosumers will like this lens a lot!
|
|
|
Jul 5, 2004
|
|
Jaymanpics
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
|
BEWARE!! I bought this lens to complement my EOS 3 back in 1999 shortly after its release and have to say it never really impressed.
For starters mine only zoomed to approx 120mm and even though I treat all my equipment with respect it had to go back to Canon TWICE to get the zooming barrel repaired as it used to stick/lock up at shorter focal lengths.
Needless to say after the second repair I sold it on and replaced it with a 24-70f2.8L
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2004
|
|
TwoBoy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 10, 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 25
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2004
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
28~135 is a very useful range, IS is a big issue with me - I like it very much (when it works well), flexibility, light, controls are convenient.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very much a plastic offer, feels rather sloppily built at 135, nowhere near L class, no bag or lens hood makes for a bad image from the start. Not even an instruction book in my box. Lens zoom creeps and wobbles about.
|
|
|
Bought sight unseen on the recommendation of my Canon Dealer - HE HAS NOW EATEN HIS WORDS. To get any semi-decent results with a 10D it is essential to use the lens with the camera being in Program as opposed to Auto mode. The AF does not work nearly as well in AUTO mode and unless you take great care the focus will will be out.
I have replaced it with the 28~300L IS USM and what a difference - the 28~300 is very expensive but worth it. I just could not tolerate the lack of sharpness
IS is the only plus but the glass is so bad in the 28~135 why even bother to make it IS and give IS a bad name. BAD IS BAD. IF I COULD RATE IT WORSE I WOULD. UNUSEABLE!!!!!! RATING ZERO.
Don't think I only buy L lenses to be otherwise. The Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro shows that Canon can make non-L lenses of excellent quality. In my opinion this is not one of them.
|
|
|
May 21, 2004
|
|
vince
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 18, 2002
Location: China
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Mar 13, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
IS really works. Great range. Silent AF and very versatile lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Slow max aperture, bulky compared to the 28-105, large filters (72mm), optics could be better. Distortion at the wide and long ends.
|
|
|
This is probably the most versatile focal length range and this is one lens most would carry everywhere. IS really works and it has saved my butt many times, in low light. USM is silent.
However, for many situations I find the f/stops limiting, specially at the long end. f/5.6 is a bit too slow for many things, and this lens needs to be stopped down to f/8 for optimal performance. It's soft wide open. Also the AF is slower than most USM lenses I have (28-105 etc). Also this lens produces quite a bit of barrel distortion at the wide end and pincushions at the long end.
It's a nice lens, but I found myself using it less and less, because I either needed to shoot at faster apertures (f/8 is just too slow if I need to take the shot AND get a sharp image). I got myself a 28-70L and didn't miss the 28-135 much except for the IS in some situations.
Still, it's a good lens and I'd recommend this to anyone - makes a good all round zoom.
|
|
|
Mar 13, 2004
|
|
GlenW
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Feb 23, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Clarity, IS, Range, Size
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight (not too bad), Filter Size, Battery Consumption (again not too bad)
|
|
|
I find the lens a good compromise and it is normally attached to the camera. It's not as wide as I'd like, or has as much reach as I'd like sometimes, but no single lens can do it all.
It's very versatile and I find the IS to effectively allow good handheld shots at surprisingly low shutter speeds (1/8 sec for example). I can get good shots of stationary objects in very dim room light if I up the ISO to 800-1600.
|
|
|
Feb 23, 2004
|
|
spartan123
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 9, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3683
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS feature, the focal range and the quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have been told I am one of the lucky ones with this lens. It is almost perfect in every way. This is the lens that stays on my camera all the time. The quality / detail of the pictures are just incredible and the build is tight. It is a little heavy but worth it in the long run. It is just a great "general" lens for the money.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2003
|
|
chrishierons
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 13, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 511
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IS; Lightweight; very good all around lens;
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom action loose => zoom creep;
|
|
|
This lens replaced my 28-90 lens, and is a significent step-up. I bought it for my EOS300. It now lives on my Eos 3. When ever I go on holiday it's my first choice.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2003
|
|
rainmax
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 19, 2003
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Oct 20, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $400.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, IS, great starter lens, range,..
compatibility with 10 D
ISO 100 - 3200
|
|
Cons:
|
I WANT SOME MORE ...
|
|
|
Using this lens on my EOS 10 D is a yoy.So far this is my only lens.good - very good.
|
|
|
Oct 20, 2003
|
|
chris78cpr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 5711
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great starter lens, great range, IS is very handy, great when coupled with 10D in telephoto aspects.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not so good at wideangle on 10D, slightly soft, doesnt use the 77mm filter that all the lens i am buying use. (I'm picking now)
|
|
|
Great starter lens, bought mine with my Eos 3 and it was great, tried it on my 10D and it was great too, overall the best starter lens in canon's range! This is my most used lens, well actually my only lens but i love it.
I feel it may be less used when the 24-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8 L IS are added to my bag but until then it'll be used all the time!!!
Buy it, you wont regret it unless you have the above mentioned lens's.
Chris
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2003
|
|
Lars Johnsson
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2003
Location: Thailand
Posts: 33669
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $475.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good range, IS, Image quality, Price
|
|
Cons:
|
Barrel extending when zooming, Soft wide open
|
|
|
Because the lens has a very good range I use it a lot. It's also a very good travel lens. And the image quality is pretty good compared to the price of the lens.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2003
|
|
FredericB
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 248
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2003
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
IS, range
|
|
Cons:
|
too soft from 28 to 35mm and 100 to 135mm, poor contrast, poor color restitution
|
|
|
From the people I talked to, it seems I got a bad copy of this lens - still it is very soft at wide angle and lacks any kind of contrast above 100mm.
I use it as my "familly" reunion lens when I do not want the "inperfections" of the skin to show (no risk) and the IS is helpful in difficult light situations.
I am waiting to change for the 24-70 f:2.8 L and I will not miss the 28-135 IS at all.
Now that I have upgraded to the 24-70 f:2.8L for a few months I am not using the 28-135 at all any more. I wish I had a little more reach (like 24-100) but I did give up the reach without regret for such an upgrade in quality.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2003
|
|
Canonizer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 256
|
|
Review Date: Jul 12, 2003
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Useful focal length range (in the film world), IS gives sharper images at slower shutter speeds, good build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creep, barrel extends when zooming.
|
|
|
If I were allowed one and only one lens, this would be it.
Close to an L lens in sharpness, the optical perfomance has left me very satisifed. Contrast is excellent. CA is acceptably controlled, and there is no obvious barrel distortion. I rarely have a flare problem, and I don't even own the hood for it.
I love IS, because I hate tripods. It works amazingly well. I own three IS lenses. My field estimate is that I gain 2 stops in terms of hand holdability. So my Velvia suddenly becomes the equivalent of a 200 speed film!
For the film world, the 28-135 focal length range is extremely useful. This lens spends a lot of time mounted to my cameras and makes for a great "walk around" lens. However, in the digital 1.6x world, the lens takes on a lot less useful personality. You'll really miss the wide end. The lens produces great images in both the film and digital worlds.
Recommended without reservation.
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2003
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
176
|
578512
|
Sep 11, 2014
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$390.30
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.43
|
8.15
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
