I'm beginning to hate my 28-135mm

[DSLR noob]

Oh wait you want ALL the points to light up? You're lens is fine then, you're just asking the impossible from any sort of optical device. There is a reason there is more than one AF point and different ones light up each time and thats because different scenes focus on different points. I can't imagine what you think when you're focusing "Oh the left one lit up and the thing to the left is in focus but the thing to the right is blurry, let's try again. Oh no the thing on the right lit up and the right thing is in focus but now the left one is blurry, let's try again." No offense but it should be pretty obvious at this point that not everything can be in focus when looking at a wide open lens. (Use DOF preview with a narrow aperture to see what will be in focus in the final image). You say you manage to get it about 16 tries. I'm surprised you even get that. It should never be able to light up all points unless everything overlapping these points is the same distance from the camera. Try a tripod and a narrow aperture (f/22) to get the most things as possible in focus......... what a strange shooting style, being able to focus on certain things over another is a useful element of photography.

 

[ga_shooter]

Thanks everyone for talking me down! Ok, so heres my next question (fine I'll keep the lens and just get better and expect less BTW):
When you are taking a picture and the subject is either to the right left, or whatever (ie, not centered) do you still use the center focus? Or do you use the focus points on the appropriate side?

 

[Big Mike]

I always use the centre AF point...even when my subject isn't centred (which is most of the time).

It's a simple technique...focus, lock, recompose. Once you get the hang of it, it becomes 2nd nature. This is where using C.F.#4 comes in really handy. You use the * button to activate the focus and use the centre spot to focus on your subject. Then you release the * button and recompose your shot...then fire away.

 

[Alex_B]

central AF only ... for all my shots.

 

[ga_shooter]

thanks Mike and Alex, I will work on that and see if i can make a habbit out of it.

 

[Big Mike]

Another benefit of using the centre AF point, on that camera but not with that lens...

On the 20D and 30D, the centre point (and only the centre point) has the capabilities to be a cross type sensor...but only when using lenses that are F2.8 or bigger. Basically, a regular AF point will detect contrast in one direction...either vertical or horizontal...which means that it might have trouble locking onto something, in some situations. A cross type can detect in both directions...which is obviously better.

So, when you are using a fast lens (F2.8 or larger) your centre AF point will actually work better than the others.

The 40D has made some improvements in this area...but I don't remember exactly what.

 

[RacePhoto]

I use CF4 to Hold Focus (unlike a bunch of other people) because if I'm taking a picture of someone in a crowd, and people are moving, or walking past, the lens will keep hunting and jumping.

I use spot metering and center focus. I have no good reason why, but that's what I like.

Now to the lens. I have one, I love it. It stays on the camera I carry with me everywhere, while my other camera, the big bag and the "better" lenses often stay packed.

I wouldn't call an $800 lens a KIT lens, just because it's not an L and it's black. :mrgreen: It's a very good IS USM lens. Kit lenses are usually less quality build and less elements, so they are cheaper. They are sold as part of the starter kit.

I like mine, but a friend who just got one used, has soft edge focus. I saw his first pictures with it and said, nice, but you have a thumb print or grease around the edge of the lens.

I think this brings me back to the "some are better than others" comments. I'm pretty sure I have a good one, and pretty sure he either has a bad one or someone dropped it, or it has something wrong, like mold. I haven't looked at the lens yet under a lighted magnifying glass. There's no reason for every single image to have soft edges.

I looked at the exif data and some are higher shutter speeds, outdoors in the daylight, with f/8. It's not blur from motion or lack of depth of field. He owns a soft lens. (I'm hoping that it just has some residue on the back elements or something on the filter that he missed.

Great all around lens. I like it better that the 70-300 for useful walk around range. Wider is better for travel and snapshots. I like it better than my 70-200 L, because it's lighter and smaller.

In fact I'm considering, very strongly, selling the 70-200 IS USM 2.8 and buying a 300mm prime and the 100-400 for sports. I was sold on the super lens, now I think I made a mistake in matching my needs.

I can add that what people said about the 1.4 extender was absolutely true. It's a good way to take a great lens and make it into an average lens. I can tell, without cheating and looking at the EXIF, which pictures are with the tele-extender and which are not. So turning a 200mm lens into a 280, and getting lower quality, just doesn't make sense.

With the 28-135, sometimes I'm fooled, and can't tell which lens was used. That's how good the sharpness and color compares to the 70-200 L when the 28-135 is on my cameras. Under some conditions.

 

[ga_shooter]

I use CF4 to Hold Focus (unlike a bunch of other people) because if I'm taking a picture of someone in a crowd, and people are moving, or walking past, the lens will keep hunting and jumping.

I use spot metering and center focus. I have no good reason why, but that's what I like.

Now to the lens. I have one, I love it. It stays on the camera I carry with me everywhere, while my other camera, the big bag and the "better" lenses often stay packed.

I wouldn't call an $800 lens a KIT lens, just because it's not an L and it's black. :mrgreen: It's a very good IS USM lens. Kit lenses are usually less quality build and less elements, so they are cheaper. They are sold as part of the starter kit.

I like mine, but a friend who just got one used, has soft edge focus. I saw his first pictures with it and said, nice, but you have a thumb print or grease around the edge of the lens.

I think this brings me back to the "some are better than others" comments. I'm pretty sure I have a good one, and pretty sure he either has a bad one or someone dropped it, or it has something wrong, like mold. I haven't looked at the lens yet under a lighted magnifying glass. There's no reason for every single image to have soft edges.

I looked at the exif data and some are higher shutter speeds, outdoors in the daylight, with f/8. It's not blur from motion or lack of depth of field. He owns a soft lens. (I'm hoping that it just has some residue on the back elements or something on the filter that he missed.

Great all around lens. I like it better that the 70-300 for useful walk around range. Wider is better for travel and snapshots. I like it better than my 70-200 L, because it's lighter and smaller.

In fact I'm considering, very strongly, selling the 70-200 IS USM 2.8 and buying a 300mm prime and the 100-400 for sports. I was sold on the super lens, now I think I made a mistake in matching my needs.

I can add that what people said about the 1.4 extender was absolutely true. It's a good way to take a great lens and make it into an average lens. I can tell, without cheating and looking at the EXIF, which pictures are with the tele-extender and which are not. So turning a 200mm lens into a 280, and getting lower quality, just doesn't make sense.

With the 28-135, sometimes I'm fooled, and can't tell which lens was used. That's how good the sharpness and color compares to the 70-200 L when the 28-135 is on my cameras. Under some conditions.

Oops, I called it a kit lens because it's what came with my camera when i bought the body! I am still torn on weather or not I have a bad one, I find myself not pulling that lens out very often and sticking to my 55mm and the 10-22mm. I didn't know that lenses could mold, or that it might be a cleaning issue. I need to examine this more closely.