more on 28-135 underexposure

I just got my lens back but although better, it still underexposes by 1/3 stop.(better than 2/3 stop)

Perhaps those of you who suffer this can try against one of your other properly exposing lenses.

If you use the 28-135 in manual, fixing identical values for both lenses, same scene, the exposure meter will read about 1/3 (or higher) compared to the working lens(dont compensate for this just fire away). Strangely the resultant image on the D60 looks identical for both lenses although the "exposure meter" says one is brighter than the other.

If you now use Tv or Av, the camera "sees" more apparent EV and chooses either a higher shutter speed or a higher f-stop and underexposes the image. ( looks blue, looks dull...disappointing, the maladies you have heard on this forum)

So I have to find the time to go shoot a series of test shots out doors to comfirm. But Please chip in if you have this frustrating problem on an otherwise clever/excellent lens.

I will bring it in to adjust its e-profile again...hope it works

AL

Andre Lam said:

But Please chip in if you have this frustrating
problem on an otherwise clever/excellent lens.

Click to expand...

Since you asked, my copy of this lens was a piece of junk; Not only did it underexpose by 2/3-1 Ev, it was way too soft. Loved the IS, but think that Canon paired it to an optical cripple.

I've been using my 28-135mm IS for 4 months, it underexposes for at least 1/3EV. I've get used to it and set the exposure compensation always +1/3EV. There's not much problem after that.

But a few days ago, I got the cheap 50mm f/1.8 and go out shooting. All photos turned out a bit overexposed... as I forgot to switch back the Exposure compensation to +-0. The difference is so obvious that I'm 100% sure that my 28-135IS underexposes with D60. I'm not sure if there's any other problem than underexpsosure, I hope not. But I'm going to take the lens to the service center and see if they can calibrate it for me to match with my 50mm.

Calvin

--
Calvin's Darkroom
http://www.CalvinsDarkroom.com
Please Leave a comment!

I must have got lucky on my 28-135IS... its nice and sharp, but the colors and contrast are not quite as good as my 70-200L. However, it may underexpose a little (1/3 at most), however, I think Canon is being a little conservative on the exposure side with the digital cameras because you can NOT recover blown out highlights, but you can restore a lot of the midrange with curves and get all the detail. In other words, its much better to have something slightly underexposed than slightly overexposed.

The slight tweaks I may have to make on a few shots with the 28-135IS is not a big deal. It amazes me how many people harp on this lens. I don't know if I just got a good one, or people are over exagurating their complaints. I think its a great walk around lens, with a great zoom coverage, and a very low price considering its an IS.

I agree, I love the lens, does everything I could ask for that price range.

Rob said:

I must have got lucky on my 28-135IS... its nice and sharp, but the
colors and contrast are not quite as good as my 70-200L. However,
it may underexpose a little (1/3 at most), however, I think Canon
is being a little conservative on the exposure side with the
digital cameras because you can NOT recover blown out highlights,
but you can restore a lot of the midrange with curves and get all
the detail. In other words, its much better to have something
slightly underexposed than slightly overexposed.

The slight tweaks I may have to make on a few shots with the
28-135IS is not a big deal. It amazes me how many people harp on
this lens. I don't know if I just got a good one, or people are
over exagurating their complaints. I think its a great walk around
lens, with a great zoom coverage, and a very low price considering
its an IS.

Click to expand...

I asked and probed a bit more about the lens and the profiling. Well, they wanted to permanently fix the overall exp compensation to +1/3EV but that would also effect ALL my lenses. So I said no....I'll accept dialing that in on my own!

The 28-135IS is a little out of spec....I don't think they made it underexpose purposely because Canon did not want us to blow out the highlights...then they would have done that with the L lenses.

Maybe I can find a good copy and trade in....maybe I should just dial in the compensation.

But if those of you who are frustrated, bring in the lens and camera to check if they are indeed within spec...I think it helped me a bit.

AL

I am so glad that both of you are pleased with your copy of the 28-135. In principle, I agree that the IS is boss! But, why would Canon pair it with Coke-bottle optics? I have done a comparison test between that lens and an el-cheapo $50-70 Canon 35-80 lens and found the optics to be on par. Additionally, it is inexcusible IMHO to have a lens which consistantly underexposes by 2/3 Ev. Did I mention that the autofocus is turtleesque too?

So, if you managed to land a primo copy of this lens which is sharp, autofocuses quickly, and is dead on with exposure, I have to congratulate you and wish you great success. Comparing this lens to a 70-200L is laughable IMHO. Based on my experiences I could not recommend this lens.

JimB said:

Rob said:

I must have got lucky on my 28-135IS... its nice and sharp, but the
colors and contrast are not quite as good as my 70-200L. However,
it may underexpose a little (1/3 at most), however, I think Canon
is being a little conservative on the exposure side with the
digital cameras because you can NOT recover blown out highlights,
but you can restore a lot of the midrange with curves and get all
the detail. In other words, its much better to have something
slightly underexposed than slightly overexposed.

The slight tweaks I may have to make on a few shots with the
28-135IS is not a big deal. It amazes me how many people harp on
this lens. I don't know if I just got a good one, or people are
over exagurating their complaints. I think its a great walk around
lens, with a great zoom coverage, and a very low price considering
its an IS.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Andre Lam said:

The 28-135IS is a little out of spec....I don't think they made it
underexpose purposely because Canon did not want us to blow out the
highlights...then they would have done that with the L lenses.

Click to expand...

they wouldn't do it AT ALL - as film cameras with Negative film in behave differently to Digital and Slide where blowouts aren't as much of a problem.. and as you say, this is the only lens it does it with..

One thing I've noticed (in comparison to my 28-70 AFD) is that it only seriously underexposes at 28mm, at 70mm it's similar to the 28-70 using a white sheet of paper with lines on as a test - 28mm is also where the lens performs the worst regarding sharpness wide open, it's fine at 135mm, in fact better than a damn SCANNER for documents ;-)

--
Olympus C2100UZI +B300, Canon D60.

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=27855

Adam2 said:

So, if you managed to land a primo copy of this lens which is
sharp, autofocuses quickly, and is dead on with exposure, I have to
congratulate you and wish you great success. Comparing this lens
to a 70-200L is laughable IMHO. Based on my experiences I could
not recommend this lens.

JimB said:

Rob said:

I must have got lucky on my 28-135IS... its nice and sharp, but the
colors and contrast are not quite as good as my 70-200L. However,
it may underexpose a little (1/3 at most), however, I think Canon
is being a little conservative on the exposure side with the
digital cameras because you can NOT recover blown out highlights,
but you can restore a lot of the midrange with curves and get all
the detail. In other words, its much better to have something
slightly underexposed than slightly overexposed.

The slight tweaks I may have to make on a few shots with the
28-135IS is not a big deal. It amazes me how many people harp on
this lens. I don't know if I just got a good one, or people are
over exagurating their complaints. I think its a great walk around
lens, with a great zoom coverage, and a very low price considering
its an IS.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I love my 28-135. The colors are brilliant (far surpassing film) and I have yet to see an underexposed shot. Couple the lens with the 420 EX and it's even better yet. The normal flash on the D60 is a fill flash, not as accurate as the 420EX. In my humble and interpolated opinion, I think anything more than the 420 EX Speed Lite for the D60 is overkill, and overspend.

Magnum