DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image Stabilizer USM
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
02/16/2004 01:46:02 PM · #1
Just a few questions if you guys don't mind:

- Does anyone have this lens and if so, can you post some sample pics and your opinion of the lens (like it, love it, hate it, etc.)?

- How much of a difference does the IS make as compared to a lens that doesn't have IS?

- How does the IS work? I'm Very Curious!

I'm looking for an all around good lens that will work in most situations. I know this isn't a fast lens but with the IS wondering if that makes up for it a little when shooting in doors.(?)

Thanks!
02/16/2004 01:53:14 PM · #2
I don't have the 28-135 IS, but I do have the 70-200 IS... and I love IS!

The one thing you need to remember is that although IS does allow you to hand-hold shots that you might not normally be able to, the slower shutter speeds that IS allows does not stop the action. So although IS may allow you to hand-hold a shot at 1/30th second shutter and have it perfectly crisp, anything moving during that 1/30th of a second will be blurry. And for capturing action, you really need to be at 1/250th or 1/500th of a second or faster to really "stop" the action.

As for IS works, you can read here on Canon's web site about the technology. Basically, "Electronic signals emitted by vibration-detecting gyro sensors are used to move the image-stabilizing lens group in parallel along the optical axis, providing clear picture quality at all times."

I don't know how obvious it is at the 28-135 focal length, but when you are zoomed out to 200mm (320mm effective on a 10D) and you are trying to hold the tip of a tree off in the distance in the center focusing square, it is very hard to do. You then click in the AF (which activates the IS), and here a slight tink noise, and then as if by magic, the branch stays centered in the square, drifting slowly as the IS elements keep things stable, unlike the jerky movements before the IS kicked. Totally amazing...

Message edited by author 2004-02-16 13:54:55.
02/16/2004 02:01:29 PM · #3
IS is really cool, the only minor down side is the streaky out of focus areas you get, but other than that it is really great.

I'm less convinced about the value of IS on something in the 28-135 range, than for something longer like 200mm , but it is very dependant on how much shooting in low light you do. I always find that the low light/ night stuff I do with the 24-85 that I have is on a (mini)-tripod or that I can easily get sufficient light to handhold at 1/125 or more - but this really depends on what you are shooting.

I picked the 24-85 over the 28-135 just to get a bit of a wider angle for the DSLR 1.6x crop, but even a 24mm isn't very wide there.

The other way I decided was looking back through all of my g2 shots and looking at the equivalent focal lengths. I found pretty much all of the 'average' shooting I did fell well within the range of a 24-85 (which is actually a 135mm on a D60)

Upshot is, I think the 28-135 focal range is a great general purpose range for carrying around, 44-216 is maybe not quite so general purpose for every day shooting and that's what the 28-135 ends up at on a 1.6x crop SLR

Message edited by author 2004-02-16 14:04:22.
02/16/2004 02:07:58 PM · #4
Originally posted by Gordon:

IS is really cool, the only minor down side is the streaky out of focus areas you get, but other than that it is really great.

I'm less convinced about the value of IS on something in the 28-135 range, than for something longer like 200mm , but it is very dependant on how much shooting in low light you do. I always find that the low light/ night stuff I do with the 24-85 that I have is on a (mini)-tripod or that I can easily get sufficient light to handhold at 1/125 or more - but this really depends on what you are shooting.

I picked the 24-85 over the 28-135 just to get a bit of a wider angle for the DSLR 1.6x crop, but even a 24mm isn't very wide there.

The other way I decided was looking back through all of my g2 shots and looking at the equivalent focal lengths. I found pretty much all of the 'average' shooting I did fell well within the range of a 24-85 (which is actually a 135mm on a D60)

Upshot is, I think the 28-135 focal range is a great general purpose range for carrying around, 44-216 is maybe not quite so general purpose for every day shooting and that's what the 28-135 ends up at on a 1.6x crop SLR


What do you mean when you say "streaky out of focu areas you get"?
02/16/2004 02:28:20 PM · #5
Bill, take a look at this pic (taken hand-held with the 70-200 IS with IS active [I always have it on]) and let me know if you see any "streaky out of focus areas". This shot is direct from camera, just reduced 50%. I've never noticed IS degrading the quality of my shots (and the 70-200 is my favorite lens).

IS lenses are used the world over by tons of photo and sports journalists because of the benefits you get from being able to shoot hand-held or on a monopod.

Message edited by author 2004-02-16 14:34:53.
02/16/2004 02:33:53 PM · #6
I have noticed the problem on my 75-300 IS lens and i keep the IS turned off because of it. It's more apparent in some situations than others. In Eddy's example, it is not visible. He had a rather seamless background to work with. The problem is more obvious when your bacground contains contrasts and/or any motion.
02/16/2004 02:39:12 PM · #7
It may be worth noting that the 75-300 and 28-135 use Canon's 1st generation of IS. If you have any links to articles/reviews on IS-caused artifacts, I'd like to see them...

From a photo.net article that I have bookmarked:

- The 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM consumer lens introduced the first generation. This version is designed to be used while you try to hold the lens still; it does not want you to pan because it will try to correct for your panning action and it's not designed for that. This one is not supposed to be used on a tripod. The 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM uses this generation.

- The 300/4L IS USM introduced the second generation. This one has two modes. Mode 1 is the same as on the 75-300. Mode 2 is for panning; it detects the direction in which you're panning and only stabilizes in the plane perpendicular to it (so if you're panning to the right, it will not attempt to stabilize any left/right motion but will stabilize up/down motion). This one is also not supposed to be used on a tripod. The 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM also uses this generation, though some sources claim that it is OK for use on a tripod and others say it isn't.

- The IS superteles (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) have the third generation. It adds tripod detection on top of what the second generation had. I'm not 100% certain but I think the 400/4 DO IS USM also uses this version.

- The 70-200/2.8L IS USM has the fourth generation. It's like the third generation, but it starts up more quickly (approximately 0.5s vs. approximately 1s) and is supposedly good for an extra stop of handholding (approximately 3 stops vs. approximately 2 stops). So far, this is the only lens using this version.

Message edited by author 2004-02-16 14:42:40.
02/16/2004 02:55:44 PM · #8
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I have noticed the problem on my 75-300 IS lens and i keep the IS turned off because of it. It's more apparent in some situations than others. In Eddy's example, it is not visible. He had a rather seamless background to work with. The problem is more obvious when your bacground contains contrasts and/or any motion.


Now I'm really curious. Can you post a 50% shot like EddyG did so that I can see the artifacts that you are talking about? If it isn't too much of a pain.

Thanks!
02/16/2004 02:56:30 PM · #9
Originally posted by wackybill:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

I have noticed the problem on my 75-300 IS lens and i keep the IS turned off because of it. It's more apparent in some situations than others. In Eddy's example, it is not visible. He had a rather seamless background to work with. The problem is more obvious when your bacground contains contrasts and/or any motion.


Now I'm really curious. Can you post a 50% shot like EddyG did so that I can see the artifacts that you are talking about? If it isn't too much of a pain.

Thanks!


I haven't saved any of the ones that exhibited the problems...
02/16/2004 02:57:13 PM · #10
Originally posted by EddyG:

It may be worth noting that the 75-300 and 28-135 use Canon's 1st generation of IS. If you have any links to articles/reviews on IS-caused artifacts, I'd like to see them...

From a photo.net article that I have bookmarked:

- The 75-300/4-5.6 IS USM consumer lens introduced the first generation. This version is designed to be used while you try to hold the lens still; it does not want you to pan because it will try to correct for your panning action and it's not designed for that. This one is not supposed to be used on a tripod. The 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM uses this generation.

- The 300/4L IS USM introduced the second generation. This one has two modes. Mode 1 is the same as on the 75-300. Mode 2 is for panning; it detects the direction in which you're panning and only stabilizes in the plane perpendicular to it (so if you're panning to the right, it will not attempt to stabilize any left/right motion but will stabilize up/down motion). This one is also not supposed to be used on a tripod. The 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS USM also uses this generation, though some sources claim that it is OK for use on a tripod and others say it isn't.

- The IS superteles (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) have the third generation. It adds tripod detection on top of what the second generation had. I'm not 100% certain but I think the 400/4 DO IS USM also uses this version.

- The 70-200/2.8L IS USM has the fourth generation. It's like the third generation, but it starts up more quickly (approximately 0.5s vs. approximately 1s) and is supposedly good for an extra stop of handholding (approximately 3 stops vs. approximately 2 stops). So far, this is the only lens using this version.


EddyG,

Do you mean if I get the 28-135mm IS lens I will have this problem? :-(
02/16/2004 03:20:21 PM · #11
Originally posted by wackybill:

Do you mean if I get the 28-135mm IS lens I will have this problem? :-(

I'm not saying that at all. Since I haven't experienced any issues related to IS, I wasn't aware that some folks thought it "degraded" their pictures. I searched for information about the issue via Google, but came up empty-handed (which is why I asked for articles / reviews that at least mention IS negatively affecting picture quality). I think if it was a big issue, you'd be able find mention of it on the net, but so far I haven't come across anything.

Message edited by author 2004-02-16 15:34:22.
02/16/2004 03:22:32 PM · #12
Thanks! I really appreciate your help!

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by wackybill:

Do you mean if I get the 28-135mm IS lens I will have this problem? :-(

I'm not saying that at all. Since I haven't experienced any issues related to IS, I wasn't aware that some folks thought it "degraded" their pictures. I searched for forum posts about the issue, but came up empty-handed (which is why I asked for articles / reviews that at least mention IS negatively affecting picture quality). I think if it was a big issue, you'd be able find mention of it on the net, but so far I haven't come across anything.

02/16/2004 03:31:51 PM · #13
I have this lens as my general walk about lens. It has a great zoom range, and the IS seems to work well. I don't see the same streaky background as with the 75-300mm IS. I'd recommend it as a general lens.
02/16/2004 03:37:46 PM · #14
Thanks, Jacko!!!

Originally posted by Jacko:

I have this lens as my general walk about lens. It has a great zoom range, and the IS seems to work well. I don't see the same streaky background as with the 75-300mm IS. I'd recommend it as a general lens.

02/16/2004 03:56:59 PM · #15
Bill also look at //photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26210

T
02/16/2004 06:11:48 PM · #16
Thanks for this read. I learned a lot by the responses here. I think it will be a good start to builing my lens collections. Right now I use the kit lens and I have the 75-300mm 1:4-5.6.

Originally posted by agwright:

Bill also look at //photography-on-the.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26210

T
02/16/2004 07:00:37 PM · #17
I have the 28-135 and I love it, but I cant compare it to any other lenses because this is me first dslr :S
I think I will be buying a fast wide angle lense next though.
I have loads of photos taken with that lense on my site. Recomend the galeries at the bottom, the first are from my learning curve :p
02/16/2004 08:52:07 PM · #18
I have this lens, acceptably sharp even when shot wide open. I love to use it for available light shots. I recently took these, all at ISO1600.

:)atwl
02/16/2004 09:12:09 PM · #19
Great shots. Were all of these hand held? In some of them, did you site the camera on the stage and shoot. I'm just asking because I noticed that they are all very nice, very sharp and some show a shutter speed as low as 1/16s. That's awesome if they are hand held at the speed. Thanks for sharing your pics. I think this lens will be a great choice for my first "real" lens. ;-) Now, just to come up with the money to get it. :-|

Originally posted by Adrian Tung:

I have this lens, acceptably sharp even when shot wide open. I love to use it for available light shots. I recently took these, all at ISO1600.

:)atwl

02/16/2004 09:23:56 PM · #20
Very nice shots. I went through them all. You have a really nice collection started there. Again, looks like the lens performs rather well. I think I'm sold. I'm kinda excited to maybe get one real soon. I like the idea of having the IS.

Thanks for sharing!

Originally posted by finnur:

I have the 28-135 and I love it, but I cant compare it to any other lenses because this is me first dslr :S
I think I will be buying a fast wide angle lense next though.
I have loads of photos taken with that lense on my site. Recomend the galeries at the bottom, the first are from my learning curve :p

02/16/2004 11:54:47 PM · #21
Thanks! :D

Yup, all handheld, a few were braced against an object like the stage or a pillar (whenever one is around).

:)atwl
02/17/2004 11:38:58 AM · #22
Here's a shot taken by Sus Bogaerts with that lens Wagon
02/17/2004 09:27:01 PM · #23
What do you all think about this lens? The couple of reviews I have read look very favorable. I really am attracted to the attractive focal lengths this lens covers. How can you go wrong with this for $299.00? I take this with a grain of salt but in one review that I read the guys said he has many prime lenses and he said that he has a hard time picking out the shots taken with this lens it is so good.

I am really interested in you guys on this site that may also have this one.

Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS
02/17/2004 09:45:42 PM · #24
Originally posted by wackybill:

What do you all think about this lens? The couple of reviews I have read look very favorable. I really am attracted to the attractive focal lengths this lens covers. How can you go wrong with this for $299.00? I take this with a grain of salt but in one review that I read the guys said he has many prime lenses and he said that he has a hard time picking out the shots taken with this lens it is so good.

I am really interested in you guys on this site that may also have this one.

Sigma Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto 24-135mm f/2.8-4.5 Aspherical IF Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

I have it ...
Works fine with f5- f8
With f 2.8 too soft

59917.jpg

Message edited by author 2004-02-17 21:51:12.
02/18/2004 08:29:42 AM · #25
With reference to the discussion of "streaky" bokeh, yes, this can happen with any IS lens. The following are a complete image (no crop) and a 100% crop of the boxed area in upper left. Note the doubling of some of the leaf edges.

52651.jpg 52650.jpg

These shots were taken with the 70-200 2.8LIS (2nd generation IS), focus is on the base of the tree. This effect was not noticeable on every shot, but it seems when the background contains sufficient contrast and IS moves just right, you'll see it.
It happens because the IS compensates for the movement at the focal plane, not the OOF areas.
It's something I did not anticipate with IS, but now that I understand why it happens, I can avoid it for the most part. If it means I get the shot, but have to contend with a mall defect, I'll take that, since I can make this less obvious in post-processing.
There was another thread on this last Fall, I can't locate it right now...

Edit: fat fingers yet again.

Message edited by author 2004-02-18 08:31:02.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 09:44:17 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/25/2019 09:44:17 PM EDT.