EF 28-135 Good enough for FF?

Hi out there.

I am shooting with the EF-S 15-85 on an EOS 40D.

Time has come for me to upgrade my camera, and the obvious choice is the EOS80D. For a little more money I could go FF and by the EOS 6DII. I still have an old EF 28-135 form analog days and the question is, if the lens is good enough for a modern DSLR.

If I bought the 24-105 f4 on top of that, it would get too expansive (and also the teknological superiour A7iii from Sony with their 24-105 lens would be a more tempting option)

What is your recommandation: Get the 80D with my good modern standard zoom or go fullframe with the 6DII and the old lens?

My other gear is the Tamron 60mm 2,0, that I use for Macro and portrait and a speedlite 420EXII.

stringouve wrote:

Hi out there.

I am shooting with the EF-S 15-85 on an EOS 40D.

Time has come for me to upgrade my camera, and the obvious choice is the EOS80D. For a little more money I could go FF and by the EOS 6DII. I still have an old EF 28-135 form analog days and the question is, if the lens is good enough for a modern DSLR.

If I bought the 24-105 f4 on top of that, it would get too expansive (and also the teknological superiour A7iii from Sony with their 24-105 lens would be a more tempting option)

What is your recommandation: Get the 80D with my good modern standard zoom or go fullframe with the 6DII and the old lens?

My other gear is the Tamron 60mm 2,0, that I use for Macro and portrait and a speedlite 420EXII.

In 35 mm terms, your 15-85mm IS is equivalent to a 24 - 136 mm lens - considerably wider. 4 mm is no small difference at the short end - so this another factor to consider.

For that reason I would go with the 80D. You could still use your 28-135mm as a 45 - 216 mm equivalent lens on that one, if you need a little longer.

Macabron wrote:

I would go for the full frame . Add a 50 mm f1.8 and that will give you a sharper (at f2.8 and above) image and a low light lens. After using your 28-135 for a while you can decide if you want to upgrade.

I would suggest this only if low light photography and ultrashallow depth of field are really his preferences/priorities.

The major counterargument is that two lenses the OP already owns are for crop cameras only, and he indicated that he does not have/does not want to spend money on new lenses.

While the EF-S 15-85mm IS can somewhat replaced by the EF 28-135 IS (albeit with loss of the 24-28 mm equivalent focal length range), this is not the case for his Tamron 60mm f2. The Tamron 60mm f2 can be used on crop cameras only, (1).

For this reason, replacing the 40D with a 6dII only makes sense if the Tamron Macro sits in his drawer unused. However, the OP indicated that he uses it for portrait and macro. While the first use can be somewhat covered by the cheap 50mm f1.8 suggested above (not fully, as the equivalent focal length of the Tamron is ~100 mm) this is not the case with macro.

For this reason, if I where in his shoes, I would get the 80D - unless low light and shallow DOF are fundamentally important. Then he would either need to 1. sell the 2 crop lenses to contribute to funds for full frame lenses or 2. keep his 40D as a second body for use with the macro.

One main argument why I would choose the 80D over the 6DII in your case would be your Tamron 60mm f2 . It is crop only, you cannot use it on the 6DII. Since you have indicated that you do not want to spend money on new lenses this would tip the balance solidly in favour of the EOS 80D for me.

The 28-135mm would still be a nice small telephoto zoom on the 80D.

A way around it would be to keep the 40D as a second camera for use with Tamron 60mm Macro.

To answer your original question, is it good enough, the answer is yes.  I still have mine although I don't use it anymore.  You should like it better than the efs 15-85 f3.5, at least slightly.  I was actually surprised with it's results.  You would also see a very definite benefit with the 6D.  However, as others have noted, not all your lenses are compatible with the 6D body.

Good luck with your decision.

Good enough is relative of course...   have you considered a used 24-105 version 1?   I think it’s the best deal out there for a standard zoom and is much better than the 28-135

Thank you for all your answers.

I think, at the end it comes down to, what my heart tells me (and what my brain tries to tell me)

Do I want the best lowlight performance? Of course!
Do I really need it? Im not so shure. Somtimes good is good enough.

The same thing counts for a shallow depth of field.

It adds up. A more expansive camera. A not satisfying standart zoom, thats not a long time solution. Primes that need to be changed.

I will go with the more rational choice and by the 80D.

//

Hi, Still FF and still a very good camera at a lower price. It would be a big upgrade from a 40D and last a very long time.

short243 wrote:

Hi, Still FF and still a very good camera at a lower price. It would be a big upgrade from a 40D and last a very long time.

+1

I would get the 6D 1 and a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 if you're on a tight budget.  The Tamron can be had for around $300 new and about $200 used.  If you need an even longer reach than that, then consider adding the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus lens.  It's a very underrated lens and can be had for about $250 on the used market.

So, if you're willing to go that route, you'd be pretty much set with relatively fast, decent quality lenses.