Canon EF 28-135mm and EF-S 18-135mm

[martinp2502]

Hi

Not wishing to hijack TobyMac's post on walkabout lenses here's my problem. I'm looking for a lens that will be fairly versatile for when I'm out and about. I tend to take the 18-55 lens when I pedal off on the bike and leave the 75-300 at home as I don't want to mess about changing a lens in what is very often dusty conditions. Sometimes However I wish I had a bit more zoom.

I'm not looking to spend major money and have looked at the Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5/5.6 Image Stabiliser USM and the Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS Lens. There doesn't seem to be a major price difference between the two and I wondered if anyone had used one of these and their thoughts.

Cheers!

[proseak]

Probably the 18-135, as it can do wide angle - although I bought the Sigma version. it's a very useful range. The image quality may not be stellar but it will be good - these days most lenses are

[russellsnr]

Hi, I use and have done so for a while the 28-135 IS cannot fault it.
Russ

[martinp2502]

Thanks for the extremely quick replies guys. As you both use a different lens i may have to flip a coin.

[russellsnr]

Thanks for the extremely quick replies guys. As you both use a different lens i may have to flip a coin.

Give me a shout when you flip the coin and i'll pop down to the west coast to give you a wave

[Harpo]

I have the 18-135. Ive had a mixed bag of images. I usually say its my lack of skill that contributes to images not turning out so good, but when I put an L lens on, the image tends to turn out much better… so Im not sure how much its me or if Im just being too hard on myself because the quality of the lens makes a difference.

Since Ive heard you need to take alot of pics to get a very few good images, if thats the case, Im on par and able to get some real good ones with that lens. BUT I really like how they look through L lenses! Anyways, as for the 18-135, I am able to get some good images with it and like the ability to go wide if walking in the city or where I need the 18mm length. On a cropped camera, thats equal to 28mm. On the 28-135, this would start at 44mm on a crop. Its up to you how wide you want to be able to shoot.

Heres one of my better ones with the 18-135.

[rpcrowe]

I started out with the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on a Canon 10D and found it to be quite a decent glass. However, when I switched to a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens, I had to add less contrast in post processing...

[inkista]

The EF 28-135 IS USM is an older design. According to the Canon website, it was introduced in 1998 and was designed solely for film, before digital had hit the scene.

Canon used it as a kit lens for the xxD series of cameras for a while. But the comment "no wide angle on a crop" was continually made about it. So they designed a new kit lens: the EF-S 18-135 IS. It was introduced in 2009. So it's got about a decade's worth of optical improvements, and it was modified for a crop body. USM was removed, probably to make it cheaper as a kit lens. But the designs are very very similar.

28-135 IS USM:


18-135 IS:



The biggest difference is the addition of a UD element (that's the purple bit; the green element is aspherical), probably for more distortion and CA control due to the smaller focal lengths at the wide end of the range. If you do the pixel-peeping thing with test charts, they're pretty similar performers where the focal length ranges overlap. But the 28-135 doesn't do 18-28mm, which can be a crucial range for crop shooters in a walkaround.

Unless you need a lens that can also be used on a film/full-frame camera or the USM, I'd say go for the 18-135 IS.

[martinp2502]

Thanks Kathy, that's really useful.