Canon EF-S 18-135 IS vs. EF 28-135 IS USM

usayit · Oct 10, 2009

ReoFlex said:
Usayit: I posted a link for you to see for yourself. Go check it out. Also, I've owned two 28-135 lenses, and borrowed my son-in-laws for this particular test. ALL of them have been "lackluster." IMHO. Three "flukes" maybe??? And talk about a "lackluster" macro lens? The 28-135mm IS USM (Macro) is the very definition of "lackluster" Give it a try and see for yourself. =)

Thank you for posting.... Your posts were basically the words of a fanatic leading a blind man.

Something still seems off here. My cousin's 28-135 IS both his original 20D and later the 5D MII produces results quite different from yours. He later traded the lens in for a 24-70L and we did see a noticeable difference as you would expect moving to higher end glass but it was no where close to the drastic difference of your test.

* First thing that is obvious to me is the WB. WB of the 18 is much warmer than the 28.
* Second thing that has me confused are the histograms. The 28-135's photo has everything group towards the left while the 18-135 is even across the entire dynamic range.
* Third, I could not help notice the slight difference in composition. I also noticed the different lighting from the fence at the back. Almost looks like photos taken in different lighting conditions/different times (handheld). One in bright sunlight and the other in overcast/diffused. This would also explain the difference in WB.
* Finally thing I noticed was the details captured and this is what I found most interesting. I am limited because of the posted resolutions but its still visible. If you ignore the differences in exposure and WB, I noticed the details capture are almost identical. I matched both WB and exposure as closely as possible. Nothing else was done. For this experiment I am only interested in the details in the wood grain at the center of the photos. I noticed that the details captured are fairly close. Attached is a screen capture of my observation. Take a guess as which one is the 18-135 and the 28-135?

I am glad you are happy with your purchase. I agree the best choice is the 18-135 for the improved IS technology and the wider 18mm focal length. I just don't agree that the 28-135mm is "that" bad. It is a well known lens and liked for about a decade.

usayit · Oct 10, 2009

Derrel said:
to mean, " both the 18-135 and 28-135 are consumer-level zoom lenses,and will produce craptastic images on the 7D at small aperture like f/8, and also at wider apertures because said lenses are not very good wide open."

Reoflex for example is perfectly happy with the 18-135mm on his 7D. I doubt I would call his photos "craptastic". If you take the 24-105L in the same conditions on one camera then another. If the ending result is difference, then the problem really seems to be the camera...

You and I approach photography from very different perspectives. I don't even like examining photos on the stupid screen.. When evaluating something, I still defer my final thoughts until I see a print. (BIG Differences there) I generally read the technical details with a grain of salt and focus on a single question "Does it satisfy?"

usayit · Oct 10, 2009

Derrel said:
No, go to Canon's web site and look at the truncated MTF graphs for the 18-135,and then look at the full MTF graphs for the 28-135 lens, and then maybe you'll understand that all Canon is showing at the MTF figures for the VERY CENTER of the new lens, while the older lens has a full MTF graph which shows itsgood center performance as well as its lousy performance out to the edges. What is Canon hiding? Looks to me like potentially atrociously poor edge performance in the newer 18-135 lens. Look at the MTF info they provide on the new lens...center figures only....hmmm. Why?

You reading too much into them... the reason why the 18-135 MTFs are truncated at the horizontal axis is the cropped sensor size. Horizontal is Xmm from the center of the image circle which is smaller on an EF-S lens.

chip · Oct 11, 2009

The EF 28-135 is not a bad lens. It is just not a good fit for a 1.6x crop frame camera. The wide end is too narrow to be a stay on lens. It would be good for a film or full frame camera. For a 1.6x crop frame camera the EF-S 15-85mm is a far better choice for a general purpose stay on lens.

ReoFlex · Oct 11, 2009

USAyit: I took the photos at roughly the same time. There might have been a 10 minute difference at best. I took the 18-135 shots first, after taking about 10 pictures, I then put on the 28-135 lens and took the same photos. All mounted to a Manfrotto tripod. Remember, I had to manually adjust the 18-135 to approximate the 28-135 lens setting at 28, so the 18-135 may have actually been set somewhere between 26-30mm. Several photos were taken at 50mm & 80mm, so that I was tilting the lens upward to see the settings clearly, then repositioning it on the subject. Hence, the slightly different compositions. Understand? So of course, the lighting was a little different, since the sun was low, about 4:30 PM and moving behind several tall trees. So that within 10 minutes as it's shining through dense leaves, the light pattern on the fence was changing. I made the test as fairly and honestly as I could. My intention was only to discover the best lens for the 7D for my purposes. I have no vested interest in either lens. Had the 28-135 been the better lens in the test, I would have just as certainly posted those results and sang it's praises, while bad-rapping the 18-135. Though I've never been a big fan of 28-135, never believing it to be all that much. I know there are many who like it, yet to me, it's always seemed, "lackluster." Just my opinion. But the test results for MY particular camera, at those particular settings, the results are quite clear. My goal in posting the results on a forum are only to be an aid to those deciding which lens to buy for their 7D. Only to be helpful. And... There it is.