Here, I know there are a lot of rookies to the DSLR/SLR world like myself. Those looking to upgrade the stock EF-S 18-55mm should look into the Canon EF 28-135mm IS.

On the 400D/XTi's crop body, the focal length equates to about 45-205mm... which for car photography. You may miss a wider angle for tight spaces such as a car show, or when doing double duty for architecture/room interiors. At 28mm, I needed roughly 5ft at 3/4 angle to fit the car in the frame. At 135mm, it gives a nice perspective and flattens out the car, while magnifying the background nicely.

Build quality it pretty good. While, better than the stock lens, compared to the Sigma 17-70mm Macro (I traded it in for the 28-135), the Sigma walks all over it. The Sigma has a crinkle finish that prevents fine scratching, while the Canon is bare plastic. The front lens element also wobbles a little when extended for the Canon, while the Sigma shows did not wobble at all.

The Image Quality is very good. While not as sharp as an "L" lens, or Tamron/Sigma's f2.8 zoom offerings, it is certainly not soft either.

Here's some reviews of the 28-135.
PHOTO ZONE Review
Bob Atkins Review

The big draw here is the IS (Image Stabilization). IS compensates for blurring that occurs because of shaking during the shot, or because of longer shutter times due to low light. This blur is magnified at longer focal lenghths. I am able to take sharp shots about 9 times out of 10, at 135mm handheld, without the use of a tripod. By no means am I a stable shooter too. I get sharp pictures, knowing I'm moving each time I press that shutter button. Amazing stuff, and this is a feature I'm looking to have in some of my future lenses. IS should definitely be looked into by novices that tend not to pay particular attention to stuff like holding the camera properly and keeping particularly still.

A big weakness though, is the relatively slow 3.5-5.6 max aperture. Unless you have a dedicated flash, do not use this for low light portraits (get a fast, long prime). This lens is shows it's best on stationary subjescts, with good lighting. Low light performace is good, but again, as long as the subject is stationary, as the IS helps with longer shutter times. For me, I was able to take a sharp shot at 1/10 at 135mm handheld quite easily. Additionally, with the slow aperture, DOF is an issue. The majority of times, especially when shooting cars, the BG will be in focus.

Auto Focus speeds on the stock lens is quite fast and near silent because of the USM. Compared to the stock lens, hunting was minimal comared to it. Only until lighting becomes really bad, does it hunt. If you haven't tried a lens with USM, you'll be pleasantly surprised by the focusing speed and noise levels.

So if you're a begginning DSLR/SLR protographer, look into this lens. Performance is great, and it's only $420 from B&H. IS will save alot of shots. I chose this lens because of the IS and it's reach. I prefer the look of long focal lenght shots. Though distorted, super wide-angle images are quite enjoyable also.

ON TO THE SAMPLE SHOTS.

The 28-135mm IS mounted on the 400D/XTi, along with the NOT INCLUDED hood and 72mm B+W circular polarizer. The downside with the large size of polarizer is the cost ($100+). Do not sacrifice on polarizers. Good polarizers have coatings on them that reduces/eliminates ghosting and flare. Do not let the polarizer be the weak link for your images.







Notice in the pics below that both angles are about the same, but in the longer 135mm pic, that the right side of the car comes into view (right rear fender). You can actually see the gas cap cover. Even if we did move slightly to the right at 70mm, you still wouldn't see as much of the right fender as at 135mm.

Shot with Sigma 17-70mm Macro @ 70mm:


Shot with Canon 28-135mm IS @ 135mm:


These pics illustrate the maginification of the background. How much of the BG you want in the shot though, I guess is a matter of the situation. In this case, the less the better. Also note how the perspective of the front windshield, front and rear bumpers are affected with the focal length changes. These images are uncropped, so I physically had to move, causing the perspective changes, to fill the frames.

Canon 28-135mm IS @ 28mm:


Canon 28-135mm IS @ 56mm:


Canon 28-135mm IS @ 135mm:


Two more pictures showing perspective changes at different focal lenghts. Again, these images are uncropped, so I moved to fill the frame, causing these perspective changes. You can see the IS at work here on the 135mm shot. Shutter speed was 1/30 for both.

Canon 28-135mm IS @ 28mm:


Canon 28-135mm IS @ 135mm: notice how pleasing a front shot gets with a long focal length.

 

Awesome pics

maybe one day ill afford a DSLR.........but i gotta get my 240 first..and schoool

 

Never take this lens to the beach, its a dust magnet. I got the lens for the 135IS, and became dismayed at the poor color constrast; then again this isn't an "L" lens. For a little more, have you considered the 17-40f4?

 

Too short. Plus the 17-40L is $650, while the 28-135 is only $420, plus it has IS. Shoot, I'd rather get the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 in that focal range, which would be just as sharp, if not sharper, cheaper, and +10mm. I did consider the 70-200 f/4 L and the 70-300 IS. I think my next lens is the 70-300 IS for telephoto, then the Tokina 12-24 for super wide, then the 85 f1.8 for portraits, then the 100 macro for macros, then the 70-200 f4 L just so I can play with an L lens.. For me at least, IS is becoming indespensible. Shooting handheld not needing a tripod for sharp pics has made photography more enjoyable.

I pretty much chose the 28-135 IS because it is the best walk around lens for my skills. I think this lens would be perfect for most of the new XTi users on this forum.

 

Having own a significant share of Sigma and some Tamron lenses, I must disagree. As the price of an "L" is highly subjective, the overall feel and built of the "L" lenses are undisputable. I've since sold most of my 3rd party lenses to fund my 24-70f2.8, 135 f2, and 70-200(non-IS). If you are on a 1.6x crop body then the 10-22 will suit your needs. The 17-40L is the cheapest wide-angle alternative for full frame cameras.

Acquiring more glass (lower f-stop), can get costly. While brighter glass can is a short-term alternative, once you venture into the world of flash photography-there is no turning back

some examples from my 24-70 f2.8L





No flash:

 

The comparison tests between the Tamron 17 50 2.8 and Canon 17 40 4.0 shows the Tamron to be quite sharp, mainly due to the 1 stop advantage. Shoot the Tamron at 4.0 and it's sharper than the Canon wide open at 4.0. The difference is negated once the lenses are stopped down to 8.0

The Canon has more vibrant colors but most consumers won't notice much of a difference. The Tamron is a hell of a bargain for ~ $400-430 USD new, especially considering it has 1 full stop advantage over the 17 40, which is important to those who either 1) shoot in low light, 2) want more separation from the focal point and the background

I'm an L supporter but the Tamron is able to hold its own against the 17 40.

As far as the OP's post, it's evident that the 28 135 is sharper than the Sigma in the first Z photo despite the Sigma being shot at f/11 and the Canon at f/8 (unless post processing was the cause for the difference in sharpness); the license plate and rear tails are much sharper on the Canon. My complaint with the 28 135 is the image softness in the corners and f/5.6 @ 135mm.

 

nice pics!

 

still using the same canon lens?

 

Yeah, and?

 

I was just curious to see if you had upgraded or what not. I am looking for a new one to replace my kit lens is why.

 

I had this lens at one point in time... Sold it and bought an "L"...

You might want to check http://www.fredmiranda.com... They have some informative reviews on almost all Canon and 3rd party glass...

Hope that helps...

 

PM'ed you. But I reitterate, to anyone new to DSLR, particularly Canon DSLRs- do yourself a favor and pick up the 50mm f1.8 prime. It's only $70, but the image quality is awesome for a non L lens. Also, with a big aperture of f1.8, you get to fool around with depth of field that is only possible with prime lenses. Compare shots taken with this lens compared to the stock lens. Excellent image quality, price, and wide aperture make this a "no-brainer" for the beginner. The only downside is the build quality, which is not like the mid-range or L lenses.

These two lenses can give you a pretty good idea of what other lenses you may want later. For me, it was a lens with IS because I like to shoot at dusk. Low light shots were getting blurred and I was losing alot of shots. With IS, it saves alot of dusk shots shot at slow shutter speeds that is impossible for me to get handheld. The 28-135 IS was my choice, because it is a great lens to take on a trip. I can take this one lens and be pretty happy. Don't get me wrong, there are times I wished I had a wider or longer lens.

Like here during my visit to Phoenix at the D-Backs/Giants game. I didn't want to carry my camera bag to the game.

Wished I had a wider lens here. This pic was taken at 28mm right under the 2nd tier, at the top steps of the bottom deck. Not quite wide enough to fit the whole field, but still a nice shot.


Now here we have Mr. Barry Bonds. I'm a big fan, had to see Barry that night... only for him to only pinch hit and them serving an intentional walk. Anyways, yes, now the 128mm was too short Wishing I had either the 70-300 IS or 70-200 IS L. Not quite long enough, but still a nice shot. Again, taken from the top step of the bottom deck. A little noisy, as I think I shot it at ISO 1600 to ensure I had a fast enough shutter speed, but I forgot to change the apeture to it's biggest. Aperture was set at F9, but should have been a 1/3 stop it's widest at f5.6 to ensure better shutter speed, but you tend to forget stuff when you're excited, especially when Barry's at the plate and you've been waiting all game to see if he'll pinch hit. Shutter speed was 1/30. For this situation though, IS saved me. At 1/30, I know the pic would have been blurred without IS and my shaky hands.


Here's a crop:


Sorry for the long post for such a simple answer, but you got me started!

BTW guys, not Photoshop here, just some settings adjusted at the RAW level. Wished I had my Windows laptop that has my image editor

 

ctwentytwo - what camera body are you using?

I have a used (two weeks - 300 frames shot) sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO lens that is not compatible with my D5 for sale.

I'm also thinking about selling the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens.

 

Not to nitpick but there are some cons to the 50 f/1.8 II (the 50 f/1.8 I is a metal mount and fetches $150 on the used market).

The bokeh on the thrifty fifty is a bit harsher than some other lens. You'll notice a pentagon shape on out of focus items whereas the more expensive glass will have a more circular shape. The AF mechanism on the 50 1.8 is loud and is sometimes inaccurate. There is some light fall off when shooting wide open but this isn't a huge issue. For $75 new, there's not much to complain about, though.

 

i personally have the 17-40 L lense and it's WONDERFUL. it's met all of my expectations and it's the most "affordable" L lens. I purchased it used off of a photographer and i've been in love with it ever since. I was considering the 28-135 or the 17-85 f/4-5.6 (which is supposed to be the equivalent but made specifically for the rebels) but couldn't resist the offer on the used 17-40.. if you have the money, i'd say pay a little more for the L lens.

 

Yes, there's also a comparison out ther between the bokeh on the 50mm f1.8 and the f1.4 also for the beginners wondering what is being discussed:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

But we're talking about what a beginner should get here. Folks, do not let the comparison above deter you fom getting this lens.

Here's reviews from enthusiasts at Fred Miranda:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...7&cat=2&page=3

This lens will let you dab in shooting with wide apertures. I don't know why none of the first time DSLR buyers who bought the XTi on this forum doesn't already have it.

 

ctwentytwo-thank you for the info, truly appreciated. I'll be getting a Connon XTi/400D soon and was looking for a good overall lens, you pretty much made up my mind. I have more reading to do, but this thread has helped tremendously. Unfortunately currently on bhphoto, they only carry the lens mentioned used, not new right now. Im looking for another decent all around alternative, possibly even something slightly cheaper. Thanks again.

Edit-Im starting out with the Canon Normal EF 50mm f/1.8 II Autofocus Lens. Once I play with this some, I'll step i tup to the one you wrote areview on...

 

nice shots! I gotta try that out with my nikon kit lens

 

Just shot today at Nankuli with the 28-135 IS. Saw some wonderul clouds, and I sorta knew I'd have this. I havn't even opened my 40D!

If anybody is interested in the lens, it's up for sale ($310) as I have another one that came with the 40D. This lens is less than a year old, bought in February of this year ('07). Still have all the papers, original box, and packing material that came with the lens... including the receipt from B&H photo.

Again, took this shot to show the lens's capabilities. Shot handheld at 135mm.

 

You have the 40D already ?!?!?!?!

I had to cancel my order and get a new computer instead ...

Oh yeah... You NEED the 70-200 2.8 IS ... I got it by accident... Hit the submit botton by mistake ... Its heavy but I LOVE IT !!!

Nice pic BTW...