FS: Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Agh, well, I'm having headaches now... :( I thought I could revive this post to ask the opinion of both of you and anyone else here on the board. I've been going through lenses and filters as if there was no tomorrow and I am feeling as though I'm not "finished" in a sense. I started off with the 105mm USM MkII Canon lens and then went up to the 135mm IS lens of which I went through 2 defective (well one defective, the other was used and returned and then sold to me as new from Amazon ...) copies until I finally hit a good one. I've enjoyed the 135 so far however, one thing that has bugged me is not being able to get CLEAR clear shots rather than the "oh it's mostly clear" photos.



To give you an idea of my financial situation, I have already lost 25.00 on a cheap Promaster 72mm UV filter (can't really ebay that... get .02) and this lens takes a 72mm filter which I just bought a B+W which was 70.00 for this and now here I am again, wanting to change lenses... The only thing is is that I prefer Canon lenses over other brands (I did like the Tamron Johnny).



One thing I really wanted when switching over to DSLR was zoom but now that I've gotton over the excitement, I think I could handle something a bit wider. Cost of the lens is also a biggie so I've been trying to figure out a nice balance between camera and lens.



Would either of you recommend, in my situation, changing over to the 17-40L when most of my shooting is portrait, some landscapes, and sporting events (which unforunately calls for the telephoto a lot of times). The IS on the 135 was not noticed to be a huge difference for me since I have somewhat steady hands but I do enjoy the thought of shooting at two stops difference. In the ideal world, I'd own the 70-200 + 17-40 but I'm trying for a nice walk-around lens that has great sharp optics. If you feel the Tamron surpasses the 40mm in optics, I would have to really consider it (but I'd take the Canon in a heatbeat regardless of price if you honestly feel that the L may be better). Maybe there's a lens I missed also that you may recommend. The other thought was upgrading the body to a 400D or 20D *not sure if I can afford the 30 anytime soon*



Thanks to everyone here and hopefully I'll find an end to this all!! (Or just leave it be and be done with it all and stick to the 135)



Cheers!

GMCloud
 
Here's an example of a lot of shots I have that just don't seem sharp to me, but maybe they are and I just have too high expectations? Even though this isn't of a stationary object (don't have any ones yet of this copy of my lens), take a look and see what you think:



http://www.gonuudle.com/uploads/IMG_1705.JPG



Understandably this shot should have been shot at a tad higher shutter and ISO200 making it a tad clearer but I'm still left with this soft picture... the picture isn't all that great either but it demonstrates the idea



I also thought I'd mention that I really enjoy the thought of a lens being weather-sealed and am curious of whether the 135 is or not?
 
how does it look with out the filter???



this is a zoom lens right???



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



not a prime..





what ap is this shot at the artical above says it's not starting to be sharp till f8..



this is what i would step up to...



http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-105mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



well worth the money..



Ps this is from my 100-400



IMG_8165.jpg






Camera make: Canon

Camera model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT

Date/Time: 2006:08:20 00:15:29

Resolution: 864 x 576

Flash used: No

Focal length: 400.0mm (35mm equivalent: 649mm)

CCD width: 22.20mm

Exposure time: 0.0050 s (1/200)

Aperture: f/8.0

ISO equiv.: 200

Whitebalance: Auto

Metering Mode: matrix

Exposure: aperture priority (semi-auto)
 
GMCloud27 said:
Here's an example of a lot of shots I have that just don't seem sharp to me, but maybe they are and I just have too high expectations? Even though this isn't of a stationary object (don't have any ones yet of this copy of my lens), take a look and see what you think:



http://www.gonuudle.com/uploads/IMG_1705.JPG



Understandably this shot should have been shot at a tad higher shutter and ISO200 making it a tad clearer but I'm still left with this soft picture... the picture isn't all that great either but it demonstrates the idea



I also thought I'd mention that I really enjoy the thought of a lens being weather-sealed and am curious of whether the 135 is or not?
Click to expand...



GMCloud27, your picture looks abit soft, in other words not sharp enough. Try to use f/8.0 instead of f/5.6 to get more depth of field.
 
Zey & Patrck, thanks!! :thx



Yes, the 135 is not a Prime lens and I enjoyed reading that review too! (Also the other lenses) I'm still going through the mess of what to do and mainly the big question is how much can I spend. The three lenses I have selected are:



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L $1,145

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS $1,156

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L $686



All three do well optics wise but I'd LOVE to get the top two... I'm just curious of whether I could get away with using the 17-40 or not and maybe down the road, eBay it since if I'm right, L lenses retain their value well?
 
GMCloud27 said:
Zey & Patrck, thanks!! :thx



Yes, the 135 is not a Prime lens and I enjoyed reading that review too! (Also the other lenses) I'm still going through the mess of what to do and mainly the big question is how much can I spend. The three lenses I have selected are:



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L $1,145

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS $1,156

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L $686



All three do well optics wise but I'd LOVE to get the top two... I'm just curious of whether I could get away with using the 17-40 or not and maybe down the road, eBay it since if I'm right, L lenses retain their value well?
Click to expand...



GM:

Sorry I didn't see your updates before. That picture looks pretty good though, which reminds me I need to get out to my local track one of these nights. The nice part, although very nerve racking thing about owning a dSLR is all the options and routes you can go as far as lenses go. If your seriously considering one of the three above I'll give you my opinion on them.



FIRST my biggest recommendation would be to go to rentglass.com and maybe rent one or two of them, especially the Ls over 1k, opposed to going through the hassle of buying and reselling.



Nobody can really tell you what you need or what except for you. With that being said I think the 17-40mm would kind of be a waste for you. I'm sure it's a great lens but it's mainly for wide angle, i.e. your really limited with your focal length. It also costs a pretty penny too, and you'd inevitable need a longer lens to compliment it, especially for sports. The 24-70mm gets rave reviews on FM for indoor photography and weddings. I still don't think it's worth the money though. FYI I was shooting at my aunt and uncle's 25th wedding anniversary this past weekend with my 17-50mm f/2.8 and no flash and most of my shots came out like a crap. Needless to say I'm gonna buy a nice external flash and stop my lens down. So I don't think the extra two stops you gain with the 24-70mm f/2.8L are worth it.



Out of the three I'd strongly consider the 24-105mm f/4L. It looks like it fits your application very nicely. You want a walk-around lens with good imaqe quality. It's got the IS which is nice and you will see a difference with the extra 4mm on the wide end. It's also nice that it's a constant f/4, and I've seen some really nice potrait shots with it.



If you only want one lens the 24-105mm would be nice. You can always go the route I went with (Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 + Canon 70-200mm f/4L) and it will be around the same price as a 24-105mm f/4L.



So you got a lot of options and choices. Although zooms are nice and flexible if your staying at one constant focal lenght you should consider a prime. They will yield better image quality.



Let me know if you need any more help/advice.
 
Thanks Johnny for that :) I keep assessing my needs and what I like to shoot and it seems that the 24-105mm would still be the best buy and looks like I may be saving a little for that one... I do like your setup for the great focal range but I will probably stick to the 24-105 just for simplicity (I tend to be one of those guys who likes to pack light and prefer not having a larger bag over my shoulder and changing lenses)



I'll have to keep you posted on the results; also found another shot that demonstrates my annoyance with the clearity:



http://www.gonuudle.com/uploads/IMG_1604.JPG



EXIF data and original size kept



Cheers,

GMCloud
 
Oh wow...actually, I may be in for some shocking news; My orders with Amazon are a big mess because of the two lens returns plus another order that was suppose to be it and they screwed up (very long story on all this). I'm curious, and it has happened to me before on other sites (I know it's rare), but Amazon may have just given me the IS lens for free... :) If so, that L may be making its rounds to my house sooner than I expected.



It's soon to conclude this but after checking my statement, I had been charged the $421.00 for the original purchase and credited it back just recently. I also crossreferenced all the e-mails and order numbers and it looks like this is final...boy I love automated systems...



The Story: Called in a return, got the replacement but kept the original for the time being. That one was a used copy with no warranty! The person who had purchased it previously put in their EF-S 18-55 Warranty Card in the IS box and you should have seen my face! Called in a second replacement and held on to that lens too. They placed an order for a lens hood and not the lens itself and I had to call and have them edit that order. The lens was then backordered and I still kept the other two until the third arrived. Shipped back the two lenses separately and both as "replacements" via the website. Got an e-mail from a staff member there saying that a replacement was already sent out so I'm hoping that they're under the impression that the lens coming back was the new one and switched it to a return. (The first lens was treated as a replacement and done properly).



Not bad eh? If all goes well :)
 
GM:



That pic is pretty good IMO, what is it that you don't like or aren't happy with? Sounds like a lot of shipping and replacing from your story, but if you can pull off a 24-105mm L, I think you'd be content and pleased.

Just keep in mind the best equipment in the world won't yield you nice photos, it's the person behind the camera.
 
Thanks John;



There's still so much for me to learn and it's one great hobby I have to say! The issue with the bee photo is its clearity. At f/7.1, the image appears soft (maybe I just have high expectations for what I have...) at its focused point. Granted I'm still picking up better techniques as time goes on (notice the date) and my photos are gradually getting better as I learn the tweaks.



I'm really down to either going to the 30D or upgrading the lens. I've had to write down each con and pro of each decision and it's tough...very tough. It'd take me a long time to learn the 30D let alone the Rebel XT that I have and a lot of the functions of the 30D I don't have the need for yet. However, there's a lot of factors that make me want to upgrade to it. However, I'm well aware of the importance of good glass and I'll still have the same issues I have now with the 30D not to mention I'll take more of a hit doing the 30D route (sell and buy new batteries, screen protector, etc.).



I really appreciate all of your help in this! Cheers everyone!



Garrett
 
GMCloud27 said:
Thanks John;



There's still so much for me to learn and it's one great hobby I have to say! The issue with the bee photo is its clearity. At f/7.1, the image appears soft (maybe I just have high expectations for what I have...) at its focused point. Granted I'm still picking up better techniques as time goes on (notice the date) and my photos are gradually getting better as I learn the tweaks.



I'm really down to either going to the 30D or upgrading the lens. I've had to write down each con and pro of each decision and it's tough...very tough. It'd take me a long time to learn the 30D let alone the Rebel XT that I have and a lot of the functions of the 30D I don't have the need for yet. However, there's a lot of factors that make me want to upgrade to it. However, I'm well aware of the importance of good glass and I'll still have the same issues I have now with the 30D not to mention I'll take more of a hit doing the 30D route (sell and buy new batteries, screen protector, etc.).



I really appreciate all of your help in this! Cheers everyone!



Garrett
Click to expand...



Garrett:



I think it would be a bad idea to upgrade your body now, considering your camera is still relatively new. The upgrades from the 30D to the XT probably won't be as noticeable since your still new to photography. Getting the 24-105mm or any other better lens would be a much better decision IMHO. When I upgraded my glass I noticed a huge improvement in my photos. Also lenses will not drop in price, they hold their value extremely well. Only time you can get it slighly cheaper is if the manufacturer offers a rebate program, but your rebate will only be $50-100 at most, whereas camera bodies constantly drop in price. Once the successor comes out older models need to be cleared out, and after a certain amount of time, there is a very big difference in price for when it came out and 2 years after. I know the Rebel XT was a lil over $1k when it came out, and I got mine for $600 after MIR, so you can definitely save money on older models if your willing to wait a little bit.

I'm hoping my Rebel XT can last me until the 20Ds drop in price substantially.



btw I just uploaded about 10-12 new photos on my flickr page. They we're all taken with my Canon 70-200mm f/4L, with the exception of the landscape. Hope you enjoy! :)
 
GMCloud27 said:
Thanks Johnny for that :) I keep assessing my needs and what I like to shoot and it seems that the 24-105mm would still be the best buy and looks like I may be saving a little for that one... I do like your setup for the great focal range but I will probably stick to the 24-105 just for simplicity (I tend to be one of those guys who likes to pack light and prefer not having a larger bag over my shoulder and changing lenses)



I'll have to keep you posted on the results; also found another shot that demonstrates my annoyance with the clearity:



http://www.gonuudle.com/uploads/IMG_1604.JPG



EXIF data and original size kept



Cheers,

GMCloud
Click to expand...





Oh I don't know. I think that shot looks very clear. Remember that a DLSR is a WYSIWYG camera. You could tweak the contrast in photoshop and it might "appear" sharper to you.

Looking at that photo the only thing I can think of is that it might be better to open up the lens a bit to increase the light.

I think I see what you are looking at as far as softness goes. The petals of the flowers aren't "distinct" and crisp.

A lot of forums that I read say that you do need to post process more than a normal camera. A couple clicks of sharpen in PS would fix that.



Also, what are the settings on your Rebel as far as contrast sharpness and... are concerned? I know I set mine up different than the factory settings and it helped.



DSLR can be great fun, and it can be very very frustrating. I started out with a 10% keep on all my shots, now I'm up to about 75%. It's nothing like a point and shoot, but when you get it right it's an amazing shot. :D
 
Wow, this has been a unique rollercoaster! I got to thank you both chp and patrick for your input. Both you guys here and Steve's Digicam's forum has made me realize that I'll be spending a bit more time practicing my technique more. Patrick, I appreciate the links for the used lenses and I contacted Ed Radar regarding his. In the end, I MAY (still havn't made up my mind) go the 30D route due to the ~140.00 price tag (140 more than what i've paid to date). Ed's lens really (and I mean tough!) gave me a headache because he's asking for a great price with only 6 months on the lens. The only thing that bugs me on the L lens is the focal length and the guys at steve's made me realize that my preferences in shooting are going to hurt more with the 105mm (not to mention that my shots could be much better uncropped with a 2-400mm lens). I've come to the conclusion that both camera and lens are excellent pieces of equiptment and I could easily do without either purchase. I am more tempted (still want to do without) to go Johnny's route of the combination of lenses and that would really fit my needs well. So I'm still a bit mixed up but after playing with the 30D, I may just go the cheap route for much better ergonomics, build quality, LCD (which I was shocked made such a large difference; reviewing photos was much easier!), the top LCD which was great using, and a hell of a fast buffer! I know that this may be a poor choice for the long haul and I may sway back but this may be the route I go :/.



This is where I gotta get back to detailing cars now... :waxing: So much easier to deal with!



Cheers,

Garrett
 
I would also say Nay on the 30d.. cannon just upgraded the 350D(xt) and that might be the next one on the plate.. so you would still be on the backside on an upgrade.. anyways the glass you get can take you very far...





I would suggest..

10-22 $500

24-105 $1000

100-400 $1250



that will give you great range two L class lenses with IS and an ultra wide for your 1.6 crop cammera.. plus in a year or to you can get a second body and have two cammera ready to shot..(i think i'm going that route)
 
I still stand with my last post, just get some nice glass and you'll be cool with the XT. The problem with getting a 30D is you'll spend a $1k on a camera, and be in the same situation you are in now, needing better glass. I also agree to study up on your techniques, and how to use everything on the camera. I just got a photography book, Bryan Peterson's Understanding Exposure , and it's been great so far. Very informative, and great illustrations. Maybe checking out a couple books like that either at a local library or Barnes & Noble would be a good idea.



As for not being pleased with the 24-105mm focal lenght, I don't blame you. It's not super wide and not to long, which is why I went my route. Don't get to caught up on zooms's focal lenght though, you can always use your legs to "zoom" for you sometimes if the conditions fit. You obviously can't take indoor shots with a 200mm, or wildlife closeups with a 10-22mm, but you get my point. Just tonight I walked around in a local park with solely my 70-200mm f/4L and got some nice pictures. My lens wasn't always fitting, but I just took some step backs.
 
holland_patrick said:
I would also say Nay on the 30d.. cannon just upgraded the 350D(xt) and that might be the next one on the plate.. so you would still be on the backside on an upgrade.. anyways the glass you get can take you very far...





I would suggest..

10-22 $500

24-105 $1000

100-400 $1250
Click to expand...



Those three are nice lenses, but not really worth it IMO for a beginner. Not to mention it seems like he's on some sort of budget, which I don't blame considering how much money lenses cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top