Canon 28-135 IS ratings

[Van A]

Take a look at the last 5-6 reviews on the 28-135 lens. The ratings are pretty low topping off at 3. If you look at the earlier ratings, they were mostly 4's and 5's. Has Canon's quality gone down for this lens on recently built ones? Are the reviewers jumping on the bandwagon and forcing the ratings of the lens to plummet?

Anyway, I've had mine for more than 3 years and it has been a gem. I can't even count the number of times that the IS has saved the day.

[Liz]

Actually I've wondered the same thing this past year. I've heard that ratings everywhere on this lens are up and down. It's interesting. One thing I did wonder: Canon has recently made some new lenses - the 17-40L and the 24-70L for example. I purchased the 17-40 for about $600 after the rebate. That's a good deal for an "L" lens. I'm wondering if people are comparing the 28-300 IS with these lenses as many people seem to be buying both of these lenses.

My experience with the 28-135 has always been good. I've used this lens for 4 years now and have absolutely no complaints. I have to admit, though, that the 17-40 lens is sharper with better color rendition and brighter. It's on my camera most of the time now. However, I couldn't compare it with the IS lens because they are different lenses, not meant to be compared. It doesn't take away from the excellent results I get with the IS.

Good to see you around here again btw. How are you doing?

Liz

[Van A]

Actually I've wondered the same thing this past year. I've heard that ratings everywhere on this lens are up and down. It's interesting. One thing I did wonder: Canon has recently made some new lenses - the 17-40L and the 24-70L for example. I purchased the 17-40 for about $600 after the rebate. That's a good deal for an "L" lens. I'm wondering if people are comparing the 28-300 IS with these lenses as many people seem to be buying both of these lenses.

My experience with the 28-135 has always been good. I've used this lens for 4 years now and have absolutely no complaints. I have to admit, though, that the 17-40 lens is sharper with better color rendition and brighter. It's on my camera most of the time now. However, I couldn't compare it with the IS lens because they are different lenses, not meant to be compared. It doesn't take away from the excellent results I get with the IS.

Good to see you around here again btw. How are you doing?

Liz

I doing fine, thanks for asking. Just been busy at work and not spending enough time with photography. I do lurk in here from time to time.

You do bring up a good point, though, about the 'L' lenses. It's a good possibility that the 28-135 is being compared to an 'L' lens (which is unfair, of course). I also have the 17-40 f4L lens and it is outstanding. But I never thought of comparing it to the 28-135. It is a shame that the low ratings might steer potential buyers away from this wonderful lens. (At least for those who put a lot of weight in user reviews.) At other sites, posters would deliberately grade an item low just to bring down the overall ratings, and not neccesarily just photo equipment (cars, audio, bikes, etc.) Kinda sad, actually.

[darkman]

It could just be that more people are shooting digital and looking at their images at 100% or greater.

Most of the older replies are probably from shooting negative film and checking prints. In this case, determining how good the 28-135/IS is relative to even an L lens on relatively small prints is negligable.

There's a saying, "measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe," which is more true now that many people are shooting digital than ever before. In other words, many people are looking inanely close at their images and worrying about artifacts that'll never see in even a decent size print. Whereas, in the past many people were judging lenses by comparing prints or looking at chromes with a loupe thats magnification approximated their intended print size.

It becomes a double edge sword. Sure, it's good (and I do) to look at images at 100% to judge quality. The flip side is the realization of what size prints you intend to make. Or in the extreme, if you only plan to view the full image, 1280x1024, on the screen.

I own this lens and like it a lot. Sure it's not as good as my L lenses or EX lenses. However, even now that I'm about 100% digital and it's field of view has changed on my 10d, it serves a purpose.

[Liz]

Thank you for your post. It is full of good information, intelligent and well written. Your explanation makes a lot of sense. I understand my own experience better after reading your post. I'm actually thinking about selling the IS lens, as I never have it on my camera anymore. I've replaced it with the 17-40 as my walk-around lens. I'm having a difficult time letting go of it though - I've used it as my all around lens for 4 years on the Rebel 2K. However, to be honest, I don't find the images as bright, colorful and sharp after using the "L" lenses (I also have the 200mm/f4L).

Liz

[Cowgirl]

Liz - I know just what you are saying. Since I bought my 17-40L, I am comparing the 'L' quality to my old pal, the 28-135 IS. I love the IS feature. But I really love the sharpness and quality of the 'L'. I too might be selling all of my non-'L's soon - because I am hooked on the 'L' quality!


Kathy

[Liz]

I don't know why, but when I purchased the Rebel 300D I started little by little "recycling" my lenses. I sold the less expensive ("kit" lens, Tokina 19-35, 75-300 IS, etc) in order to purchase better glass, including the Canon 200mm/f2.8L and the 17-40L. I discovered just looking through these lenses was a difference experience for me. The 17-40 is my favorite. For some reason, these 2 lenses are less expensive than most L lenses. I also have the 50mm/f1.4 and now the 85mm/1.8, both of which are close to "L" quality. So, now I have less, but better glass. I'm about to sell the IS which has been my "favorite" since I got my first SLR - and I find it hard to give it up, even though I don't use it anymore.

Good seeing your around, Kathy.

Liz

Liz - I know just what you are saying. Since I bought my 17-40L, I am comparing the 'L' quality to my old pal, the 28-135 IS. I love the IS feature. But I really love the sharpness and quality of the 'L'. I too might be selling all of my non-'L's soon - because I am hooked on the 'L' quality!


Kathy