I am trying to decide whether to purchase a 28-135 IS and would welcome some information please.

For example, would I achieve better results at 135 by shooting at 1/500 (IS off) or 1/60 (IS on) (or 1/500 and IS!). Basically in real terms how effective is the IS? Do people leave it on all the time?

Are there any long term problems with having delicate "moving" elements in the lens?

Having read much advice on the 28-105, I must say I owned one for two years and was never very impressed with sharpness and contrast (perhaps I had a poor example) - Is the 28-135 IS clearly superior and as a cheaper alternative is the 24-85 as a later computation with an aspherical element also superior to the 28-105?

Any of these focal lengths would suit be fine - optical quality is the most important factor (BTW I cannot afford the 28-70 L!)

Many thanks!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 23, 2002

Answers

In my family we have all three of the lenses you mention (I have a 24-85, my father an early 28-105, and my mother has just bought a 28- 135). There's little difference in quality between the 24-85 and the 28-105. We've not had the 28-135 long enough to make comparisons.

However, I own a 300 F4L IS, so I can answer your questions about IS. There are no apparent problems with having the IS elements. If you're at 135, you should get the same results at 1/500th whether you have IS on or off. This is above it's range of effectiveness. However, at 1/60th, you will get much better results with it on than with it off. If you're shooting in very bright conditions, then there's no reason to leave IS on. Also, if you're panning, you'll need to switch it off, as the 28-135 does not have mode 2.

The general consensus seems to be that the 28-135 is a better lens optically than the other two. I shall wait to see some results from it with interest.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 23, 2002.

I've owned all three lenses and couldn't tell any difference as far as sharpness was concerned. But the 24-85 and the 28-135 are gone. The 28-105 is my "keeper," the lens that stays on my camera most of the time.

I found the 28-135 to be heavy, klutzy, and not a true 135 at the long end -- more like 115 or 120mm. As for the 24-85, I found I needed something longer than 85mm much more frequently than I needed something shorter than 28mm. So it went bye-bye and the 28-105 stayed. YMMV.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 23, 2002.

Giles, upon re-reading your question, I decided to add a few more comments.

You asked if the 28-135 were clearly superior. The answer is that is not clearly superior in terms of sharpness and contrast. If it is superior at all, it is only by the very slimmest of margins, unless you had a very poor sample of the 28-105. I would say that the 24-85, on the other hand, is, if anything, slightly inferior to the 28-105.

To repeat something I said on an earlier thread: The 28-105 is a real sleeper -- probably the best zoom lens made for the money. I sell 20x30 prints from slides made with my 28-105 and Fuji RDP-100 film.

But it is not a 28-70L. If you must have that kind of quality, you know what to do.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 23, 2002.

I have had people tell me that they like the 28-135 better than the 28-70 f2.8. Some for the range or weight but many have mentioned that the 28-70 is more prone to flare. I own a 28-70 and have never had a flare problem. IMHO you can't go wrong either way. Yes the 28-135 is slower but you have IS. IS is a big bonus it will not make your lens sharper but you will have more in focus pictuers at the slower speeds. Slower speeds resulting from slower films. Slower films producing crisper and less grainy images. It all adds up. As for moving parts good rule of thumb nothing if photo will last forever.

-- john (mr.-n-mrs.g@att.net), January 23, 2002.

Thank you everyone for your comments thus far. It is clear to see that like the Leica forum the base of knowledge here is so friendly and informative!

I am looking to re-enter the EOS system after many years of previous use, and the question of which standard zoom to choose is tricky!

Just to delve deeper into "IS" - what I was really keen to find out is whether a (for example 135mm long) 1/30 IS shot would be as impressivly sharp as a 1/500 - ie is the "IS" *THAT* good?

Back to image quality, perhaps I did have a bad 28-105 but judging by everyone else who ever owned one I seem to be the only one! It was (very) clearly inferior to a Tokina ATX 28-70 I owned and IMO even inferior to an older 35-80 EF lens I started out with!

I also have access to a older 35-135 USM, disadvantage being the .75m close focal distance - however it seems to me some of Canon's mid range lens quality goes down over the years not up!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 23, 2002.

I have tested the IS on a couple of lenses and in my hands I got an easy 2 stops and often 3 stops of hand hold ability with the IS turned on. So with IS, 135mm @ 1/30 seconds is like 1/120 to 1/250 seconds. Works for me, but there is a limit to how much it can help.

-- Jim Strutz (j.strutz@gci.net), January 23, 2002.

The 35-135 USM is not as good as any of the three you originally mention. I mentioned that my mother had just bought the 28-135, and that's to replace a 35-135.

I use IS on my 300 F4L IS, and I can get superb shots at 1/90th and even 1/60th with the IS. Both the shots in this folder were taken at less than 1/100th with the 300mm lens: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=173974

That is just an example of how effective IS is. It will allow you to shoot even slower with the shorter zoom.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), January 24, 2002.

Many thanks everyone!

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), January 24, 2002.