Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 29, 2006, 4:51 AM   #11
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

hercules wrote:
Quote:
One question on the 28-135 lens is it dust free or not and some people have said that the 28-135 works well with FF cameras, and not the 350D.
Well the 28-135 IS USM is not an L, and even that not all L's are dust and water resistant...

This lens is sharp - no doubt about it, I have one too because my 10D does not take EF-s lenses so it works well on non full-frame cameras too. My only complain with this lens is that plastic construction tends to wear out with use... and anyone who has owned this lens for a while can shake it and hear all the loose elements inside! :-)
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 3:21 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Setiprime wrote:
Quote:
PJ1974 - the Canon 28/135 made about $4000.00 for me last year. It is one of the most underrated lenses around.

Atweak in PS and you have some nice 11 x14 prints.
Setiprime, I agree with you - it's a very underrated lens. I notice a lot of good photographers seem to have this lens amongst their arsenal, even though the other lenses they have are L's and good primes.

Over the past weekend (28 - 30 April) I used the 28-135 lens to shoot about 2000 photos at a big Christian youth conference (several hundred young people together, music, talks, activities, sports, etc) - where they had asked me to be the official photographer - this lens was on my camera 98% of the time. Very handy for such an event.

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 3:34 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

NHL And Hercules,

NHL, you answered Hercules' question about weather sealing on the 28-135mm lens. And as written, not even all L's are rated as dust and water resistent. I've seen a number of folk use the 28-135mm lens in varied and harsh conditions with no problems. While some people might write and worry about weather sealing, rarely or ever have I actually seen people have problems with water or condensation getting into the lens and causing problems which were visible on photos.

About weather this lens works well on a 350D (1.6x crop sensor). It DOES work well on both a APS-C sensor (e.g. my 350D, although of course one doesn't get a very wide "wide-angle"), and it does also seem to do well on a full frame. There is a recent review of the 28-135mm lens both 1.6x sensor and FF, on the www.slrgear.com website. Check out this URL: http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp.../cat/11/page/1

NHL, you mentioned: "anyone who has owned this lens for a while can shake it and hear all the loose elements inside! :-)" OK, but while you might hear all the elements inside rattle, does that actually mean the lens isn't functioning well? e.g. is autofocus, zoom smoothness, IS function now not working or in decreased quality)?

I've only had my 28-135mm lens for half a year, and it's still working like brand new (i.e .very well) after about almost 8,000 photos from this lens. I also noticed yesterday actually there is still no lens creep (i.e. with the lens pointed down and when I walk with it, it does not "automatically extend"... that is it stays at the 28mm setting, so I'm pleased with that).

So NHL I'd be interested to hear your opinion if the lens actually seems to misfunction or just seems a bit "cheaper in construction" (i.e. earlier rattle noises) after more use...

All the best

Paul

pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 3:39 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

A quick PS...

I have noticed quite a few serious photographers have the 28-135mm lens amongst their lens arsenal even while the other lenses they have are L (or similar top quality lenses) and good primes, so that's another positive point I liked about it (for both reduced frame and full frame cameras, digital and ...gulp... film!

AND I noticed a number of websites / photography equipment sellers matching the 28-135mm lens to the 5D full frame camera as a "bundle package" (sort of kit lens with the 5D, which with it's full frame is obviously harder on lenses than a reduced sensor frame camera). So again (as the SLRgearfull framereview showed) it seems a surprisingly decent lens for full frame performance, and at an affordable price.

I'd like to see that myself onetime, see how the 28-135mm is on a full frame... though I don't think I'll be going the full frame path (mainly camera cost, and I often prefer a bit of extra zoom)... but I'd like to see it, just out of curiousity!

And the extremities of the photos using my 28-135mm lens on my 350D I see basically no blurriness (compared to) photos that I've seen even the revered 17-40mm lens do on a full frame. So I'm glad for that!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 4:19 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Quote:
the 5D, which with it's full frame is obviously harder on lenses than a reduced sensor frame camera
Not really.

How "hard" a camera is on its lens is chiefly a question of the sensor resolution. So the crop camera has the advantage that it only uses the centre of the image circle, which is the best bit. On the other hand the pixel pitch on the crop cameras is smaller than the full frame cameras, so in the area they do cover, they actually demand a higher resolution lens.

The same is of course true when comparing MF & LF lenses to 35mm lenses, although the overall quality is better from MF & LF in general the lenses on 35mm are of a higher optical quality. Though of course now that digital has come along the MF & LF manufacturers are upgrading their lenses too.

This is why when you look at the MTF chart for the EF-S lenses they actually look very good even compared to some of the L lenses. They have been optimised for the higher resolutions required of them.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=mtf+challenge




peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 6:30 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
hercules's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sparta, Greece
Posts: 2,649
Default

peripatetic wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
the 5D, which with it's full frame is obviously harder on lenses than a reduced sensor frame camera


This is why when you look at the MTF chart for the EF-S lenses they actually look very good even compared to some of the L lenses. They have been optimised for the higher resolutions required of them.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...=mtf+challenge

So for the 350D that is not an FF camera, one should buy EF-S lenses that would work better right?

hercules is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 8:16 AM   #17
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

pj1974

My 28-135 IS USM have seen more use than yours...

I've used it on my film camera before digital - I've sent it in so it can be 'tightened' but the looseness came back after a while. The 1-year warranty is now long gone (wished it had the Sigma 3-years though) :?

You probably don't notice this where you are, but when I traveled to humid countries like the Carribean or South America and go out early in the morning from an air conditioned room, the lens will fog up (internally). Just like I said it's still sharp but you can definetly wiggle it !

You'll probably notice it the most when you rotate with a polarizer up front... (It's a 3 sections plastic design after all) :idea:
-> Except for the sliding 100-400L, most Ls (or Sigma EX's for that matter) are made out of a solid integrated metal cylinder - that do not extend or retract (hence no play)... moving the air column with it.
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 4:20 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Peripatetic,

Thanks for informing me. I didn't know that information (about pixel pitch) before, it proved an interesting (and thankfully understandable!) read to me, and it just goes to show "you can learn something new each day". The other steve's link (URL) you gave also was insightful, thanks! (and good on you for the MTF challenge!)

Appreciate your input in this!

Paul


pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 4:28 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Hercules,

You posted a question, but it was (almost) lost in the "grey" quote area. Try to put questions out of the quoted area...

your question was (for anyone [else] willing to answer):

"So for the 350D that is not an FF camera, one should buy EF-S lenses that would work better right?"

My answer would be, yes with a NON FF camera (e.g. 350D) if you (the user) are certain you will NOT upgrade to a full frame camera in the future, then an EF-S lens often provides a cost effective and good quality solution (and usually of course giving usable zoom ranges).

Having said that the recently announced EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM lens is quite an expensive EF-S lens. Rumoured to have L optics (definitely at the price it should) and very good build quality.Not to be confused with the 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 kit lenswhich is obviously a lower performer and much different lens. (I have that 18-55mm f3.5 - 5.6 kit lens, and happy with what I need it for!)

The reasons I got the EF 28-135mm lens (and not the EF-S 17-85mm lens) were because I wanted the extra zoom reach and the 28-135mm ended up being about £100 cheaper (including a rebate). And also I wanted to buy the kit lens anyway, which provides wide angle when I need it. True sometimes I'd like the convenience of having a wide angle (i.e. 17 or 18mm) to 85 combination, but there are other times I'd really like to have a bit more zoom than 85mm too. Finally I decided if I ever did go full frame, it would be handy then to have the 28-135 (which is an EF) lens... But that's (presently) quite unlikely I'll go full frame...

So in the end (as if often said) it depends on the person, the photographer and his/ her shooting style! "To EF-S or not to EF-S that is the question"

May other people will answer your question in more detail or with their perspectives, opinions... in a better way!

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1, 2006, 4:49 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

NHL,

Thanks again for your post. Indeed I can understand your 28-135mm IS USM lens has seem more years of use and more light than mine.... I respect your photos and skills!

When you said you sent it in to be "tightened" was the lens in danger of falling apart (loose screws or joints or something else. e.g. part of the zoom barrel)? Or just was it feeling bad and "creaky" / "loose"?

I know that the lens can get humidity in it in humid / tropical countries, and actually here in winter I've seen going from -20 outside to inside (e.g. a car or house) does the same. So I "protect" it using the "store in an airtight bag for 30min - 1 hour" trick to protect or try to prevent internal condensation possibly leading to mould.

Did your lens actually have mould or other bad substances in it after a while? OR did you just notice the internal fogging up but no (long term) problems? I'm very curious about this....

I haven't (yet) used a polarizer... but if I buy one (and use it especially in it's first summer) maybe that wiggle you talk about will become more noticable. I do notice that wiggle when I steady the camera holding the lens (at the end section sometimes). But generally I support the camera holding the lens (using my left hand) near the base of the lens... (and of course my right hand is on the handgrip!)

I just realised, isn't photography really annoying for "lefties?" (left-handed folk) or is it possible to get used to and steady using the "non-strong" hand?

NHL, I have yet to use any L lens much (I've seen a few though) but I guess if I got an L or Sigma EX's lens as you also often recommend, I'm quite sure I'll find the solid integrated metal cylinder and lack of extend / retract (ie.. no play) very handy!

Would be appreciated if you could let me know those answers:

1. if the looseless (needing tightening) actually degraded in longevity of the lens?

2. did stuff build up on the inside of your lens from humidity / condensation that came into the internal part of your lens?

Cheers (as always)

Paul
pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 PM.