question about Canon 28-135mm IS

dufrenbk · Apr 2, 2008

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=149&modelid=7337
1. what does everyone think about this lens?
2. what does everyone think about this lens on the Canon 40D?

Big Mike · Apr 2, 2008

It's a decent lens. The image and build quality are good (better than the cheap lenses but not as good as the 'L' series lenses).

It's biggest disadvantage is the rather small maximum aperture.

On a 40D, I would personally feel that it's too long...primarily on the wide end. I wouldn't want to be limited to 28mm on a 40D.

On a camera like that, I would prefer the EF-S 17-85 IS. It's basically the same lens, but in an EF-S format with a shorter focal length. I have this one and use it regularly.

dufrenbk · Apr 2, 2008

what exactly is better about EF-S compared to EF?

Big Mike · Apr 2, 2008

Are you aware of the 'crop factor' of many Digital SLR camera...including the 40D? (If not, where have you been living, under a rock?

)

Anyway, EF lenses we designed for 35mm film cameras. DSLR cameras are designed to use the same lenses but many of them have a digital sensor which is smaller than a frame of 35mm film. The result is that the image circle projected by the lens is 'cropped'. The factor for Canon is 1.6.
So the field of view is narrower (for a given focal length) on the 40D than it is on a 35mm film camera (or full frame digital like the 5D).

Anyway, this means that getting a wide field of view, is harder to do on a camera like the 40D. To give people back their wide angle FOV, at an affordable price...Canon gave us the EF-S lenses. They typically have shorter focal lengths to give us the wide views that we were used to with film cameras.
Now because the sensors are smaller on these cameras. The EF-S lenses don't need as big of an image circle as EF lenses...also, the rear element sticks farther back into the camera than EF lenses.

So really, there is nothing 'better' about EF-S lenses, compared to EF lenses. They give you a wide angle for less than a really wide angle EF lens.

On the down side, EF-S lenses are not compatible with film EOS cameras or full fame digital EOS cameras. So if you upgrade from a 40D to a 5D (for example) the EF-S lenses won't upgrade with you.

keith204 · Apr 2, 2008

Big Mike said:
On a 40D, I would personally feel that it's too long...primarily on the wide end. I wouldn't want to be limited to 28mm on a 40D.

On a camera like that, I would prefer the EF-S 17-85 IS. It's basically the same lens, but in an EF-S format with a shorter focal length. I have this one and use it regularly.

Ditto everything said.

Mav · Apr 2, 2008

Click the crop factor link in my sig. :wink:

Nothing wrong with the lens, except that 28mm is not going to be wide enough for a lot of stuff on crop factor DSLRs. That's what the EF-S lenses are for with the wider views like the 17-85IS that's been mentioned. If I shot Canon that would be one of the first lenses I'd get.

Jon0807 · Apr 2, 2008

I have that lens on my 40D and I think it's a good starter lens. But after playing with it for a while I did wish that I had a wider lens. If I had to do it over I wouldn't have gotten the kit and just got the body only and the 17-85 as Mike mentioned.

STINKY PICTURES · Apr 2, 2008

I have the 40D and this exact lens and it takes super fantastic pictures. the clarity is outstanding. i couldn`t be happier. the pictures are crisp, clear, sharp and the lens is not that expensive, it doesn`t do a lot of searching, it focus`s fast, the colors are great, nothing muddy. i have noting bad to say. My only complaint and its minor is that the pics are a little wide, but i do crop them anyway, i sell on ebay. I take all my pics indoors in natural light, no photo lamps. and the lens is amazing with natural light. i can almost shoot in the dark i`m so impressed. I shoot in front of windows and i can`t tell you how wonderful this lens in poor light with the window light. I did a big photo shoot today and i was able to use just about every single picture i took.

My camera came with the 17-85 but it was too soft of a focus for me, everything came out soft. so my dealer traded it in for me and i got the 28-135 which worked out much better for me.

I have to mention, that i`ve only had this lens for 2 days. and i`ve only had my 40d for 2 weeks so i`m still a green horn.

dufrenbk · Apr 3, 2008

What does each lenses filter diameter affect? Sorry if this is a noob question, but, I am a noob...

Dao · Apr 3, 2008

You may also want to check out this lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=332&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS

I do not own this lens yet. However, saw good review on it. Since it is a 18-200mm lens, in your 40D, it is going to be 28.8-320mm (Mine is 400D with the same crop factor as yours, i think).

And I am planning to get it later as a all around lens. By the way, OS in this lens is similar to IS in Canon lens. The only problem I saw in this Sigma lens from browsing the reviews, it is nosier and the AF is not as fast as Canon. Of course, don't just take my words for it. Do some research yourself as well.

keith204 · Apr 3, 2008

Dao said:
You may also want to check out this lens.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=332&sort=7&cat=37&page=1

Sigma 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 DC OS

I do not own this lens yet. However, saw good review on it. Since it is a 18-200mm lens, in your 40D, it is going to be 28.8-320mm (Mine is 400D with the same crop factor as yours, i think).

And I am planning to get it later as a all around lens. By the way, OS in this lens is similar to IS in Canon lens. The only problem I saw in this Sigma lens from browsing the reviews, it is nosier and the AF is not as fast as Canon. Of course, don't just take my words for it. Do some research yourself as well.

WOW those reviews are good, especially for a 18-200.

dufrenbk · Apr 4, 2008

would the 40D and 28-135 option be better than a Nikon D40 and this lens... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/408518-USA/Nikon_2159_18_200mm_f_3_5_5_6G_ED_IF_AF_S.html?
I've read reviews of the 18-200 and it seems like a pretty good lens. I'm just not so sure about the D40 I guess.

I really like the focal range of the 18-200. Both have image stabilization. 28-135 may be a little too narrow for me i guess. BUT, and this is a big but, I fell in love with the 40D and it seems like the body i want. And another big but, I prefer the price of the D40. And yet another but, the price of the D40 with the 18-200 will come out to pretty much the same as the 40D with the 28-135. SO, what's the better option?

O yeah, and if everyone still says the 28-135 isn't good enough, what lens would be with a good focal range... kinda like 18-200?

Mystwalker · Apr 4, 2008

I would not compare D40 with 40D - different animals.

D80 is closer/equal to the 40D.

You may want to pick up the cameras in question just so you know how "they feel". I chose 30D over D40x because D40x felt "small", "not as solid". I believe D40x is "upgrade" to D40, and 40D is upgrade to 30D. Point being 40D > D40

I like the D80 specs, but could not find one to touch so got 30D - no regrets though.

28-135 IS is a good lens ... it's the kit lens I got with 30D. You can get it between $150-$250 on EBay.

Also, do not forget the 50mm f/1.8 ... it's like $90.

dufrenbk · Apr 4, 2008

yeh i know D40 and 40D are in completely different fields, but i was just wondering which would give me more "everyday use" and have, i guess, the best iq