| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/09/2004 09:01:16 PM · #1 |
I'm thinking about getting a new mid range 'travel' lens. This is because a lot of the times I go anywhere, I don't want to carry two or three lenses with me. I've used a 24-85 and been resonably happy - though the results aren't spectacular when enlarged.
I'm thinking about the 28-135 IS and looking for opinions - how does it handle, is the wide angle enough for general use, given that its really a normal lens range, how good is the IS how much does it drain the battery, what are the prints like (say compared to a 17-40 F4L or a 70-200 F4L)
Would I be better considering the 24-70 2.8 instead, given that the speed I gain with the IS would be made up by the wider aperture on the 24-70 ? Though I guess I'd lose some reach.
What lens do you use when you only get to take one lens ?
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:08:40 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
What lens do you use when you only get to take one lens ? |
28-135
Message edited by author 2004-07-09 21:09:25.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:14:06 PM · #3 |
| I'm waiting for something like 20-70 f2.8 ! |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:21:27 PM · #4 |
| 28-135. I thought it was too heavy until I carried the 100-400 around a few days. Now I enjoy it immensely. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 09:29:23 PM · #5 |
I use the 28-135 for my walkabout lens. Here are a few shots I made with this lens recently while on a tour boat on the Buffalo River:
Buffalo Grain Elevators
Among these are closeups and some wide angle shots that may give you an idea of what can be done with this lens. I love it (but would really like to get the 17-40L/4!!)
Edit: In answer to your questions, the lens handles very well. I always have IS on, and during the grain elevator shoot I took over 300 photos in raw mode. Subsequently, I've taken another 100 shots an dthe battery is still alive.
-len
Message edited by author 2004-07-09 21:56:04. |
|
|
|
07/09/2004 11:01:10 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
28-135. I thought it was too heavy until I carried the 100-400 around a few days. Now I enjoy it immensely. |
Ditto... Ditto :)
Message edited by author 2004-07-09 23:01:24.
|
|
|
|
07/09/2004 11:22:56 PM · #7 |
My first choice wld be the EF 24-70L/f 2.8. I've been looking at, reading about it and physically comparing it to my less costly EF 17-40L/f 4.0 for a while now.
I'd consider it along with the EF 70-200L/2.8 (non-IS) as the best there is: sharp images with good contrast and an excellent bokeh within the (most critical, for me,) focal range.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 01:29:05 AM · #8 |
I'm really happy with my 24-70 f/2.8. As for a 'walkabout' lens, I'm not sure its the greatest thing. It's big and bulky.. heavy, to say the least.
I think my Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 was probably the best lens for this purpose I have owned. You are gonna have a tradeoff between sharpness and portability at any rate. I don't think the 28-135 IS lens would be any sharper than the 28-105, or maybe even your 28-85 lens. As you already know, I don't think IS is worth the money. At least its not for my style/modes of shooting. If it's too dark for a good natural light photograph, I bump the ISO until I can get a satisfactory shutter speed. If I can't get a satisfactory shutter speed, I consider using my flash. I don't think IS is a good solution for making shots you wouldn't have been able to make otherwise. Chances are that if your lighting is not good enough for a hand held photo at 1/60" or faster, using IS is not gonna give you a high quality print on the photo anyway.
I make do in low light with what I have. I just shoot a lot when I know I want to get something decent. I have never run into a low light situation where I didn't have to kick the iso up to 800 or 1600 to get what I wanted anyway. The instances where you would like to shoot at ISO 100 and simply have to bump it to 200 to get a good shutter speed are rare and marginal at best.
All I can really suggest is to evaluate what type of 'walkabout' shooting you do the most. You could always get a 28mm f/2.8 and you already have the 50mm f/1.8. I think you have the 100mm f/2.8 also. The 28 and the 50mm lenses wouldn't be too much to carry around. They are both small.
Every photo can't produce a high quality print. Not even every photo with expensive lenses.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 01:58:46 AM · #9 |
I think IS is for people like myself who tend to be a little clumsy.
I have 2 IS lenses. Unless I use a tripod/monopod I always have the IS enabled, and it really does help me. I may be somewhat eccentric, but for me just the added confidence is worth the money.
I think one could make a good argument over the additional cost, especially if you don't use the IS often. For me, the additional cost is easily justifed especially when you amortize it over the life of the lense. |
|
|
|
07/10/2004 04:30:46 AM · #10 |
I have the Canon 28-135 IS USM. It's the one that's always on the camera so it's now my walkabout lens. I always use it with the IS on and a monopod...talk about overkill. I get odd looks. :-D
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 07:33:49 AM · #11 |
Like I said up front, this would mostly be for travel - tends to be then places where I wouldn't have a a decent flash (or not allowed to use flash - tourist places etc)
Carrying 3 primes isn't really an option - this is for times when I'm being touristy not carrying a camera system and swapping lenses.
The 24-70 is certainly appealing, but just seems to lack the reach if I only have one option - for shooting with all my lenses, the 17-40, 50mm and 70-200 have enough coverage that I don't feel the 24-70 gains me much.
Main problem with the 24-85 is that it is a bit on the slow side.
The Optio S4 is great for this sort of thing too - but I feel I'd like a middle option.
Message edited by author 2004-07-10 07:41:45.
|
|
|
|
07/10/2004 11:44:48 AM · #12 |
I have the 28-135 IS as my "main" lens. It's surprisingly sharp, and the IS really does work. I was skeptical when I bought it, but as long as you don't expect it to help with moving subjects, it is nice.
The zoom mechanism seems a bit sloppy, but I haven't noticed any effect on the image.
On a 10D (or similar camera) 28mm is just not that wide. If you like, I can post some sample shots. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 02:06:32 PM · #13 |
You may want to wait to see what new lenses Canon introduces at the Photokina in the fall. The dealers tell me, something might break (in this focal range).
|
|
|
|
07/11/2004 05:29:03 PM · #14 |
| I am very satisfied with the 28-135 IS, and it would be the lens I choose if I could only take one with me. If I can take two, I still take this lens, and the 17-40 to cover wider angles. |
|
|
|
07/11/2004 05:37:37 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
What lens do you use when you only get to take one lens ? |
Nikkor 24-85 f/2.8-4
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 03:21:02 PM EDT.
