**** 28-135IS Revisited ****

Started Feb 25, 2003 | Discussions
Greg M Veteran Member • Posts: 4,268
Re: ...

Andreas Steiner wrote:

The move to FF might happen faster than you maybe expect.

What evidence supports this? Just wishful thinking?

Both Nikon and Canon are coming out with new wide zooms and the crop factors are remaining. I think they are more concerned with getting the price down then they are with moving to FF. Canon produced the 1Ds for the pro but I think that it is not the direction that Canon is going in the near future. It looks like it will be quite a few years (5+) before we see FF options on the lower end of the DSLR market.

Greg M Veteran Member • Posts: 4,268
Here are some samples

These are pictures to show how the 28-135 IS performs on the 1D. They are not meant to be works of art and also not meant to be pretty. I metered using the center and exposed the shots for different surfaces (white van, dark trees, sky, you get the point). I put it in P mode and let the camera do everything. A little levels and a little sharpening makes these look a whole lot better, except those that are very underexposed.

I just spent the last couple of hours getting this together. This link will give the specifics on the processing and settings. Just read the info on the first page and the exif info is under each picture.

I also found that my sensor needs cleaning:(

http://www.mocanu.com/gallery/list.php?exhibition=22&pass=d0211dbaba723101ec203f769601e678

(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: ...

The move to FF might happen faster than you maybe expect.

What evidence supports this? Just wishful thinking?

No. The 1Ds came as a surprise as well, didn't it? Did you read the following, for example?...
htp: www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021303atmel8mpccd.asp

Both Nikon and Canon are coming out with new wide zooms and the
crop factors are remaining. I think they are more concerned with
getting the price down then they are with moving to FF. Canon
produced the 1Ds for the pro but I think that it is not the
direction that Canon is going in the near future. It looks like it
will be quite a few years (5+) before we see FF options on the
lower end of the DSLR market.

...I'm sorry, I'm not into this plotting / guessing / speculation thing.

Andi

AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Error codes

The way some people talk here, you'd think that the 1D gave an
error code when you put a 28-135 on it.

there is a pin in the mount which is connected to a solenoid in the body on the 1D and 1DS, if the camera detects that a 35-80 has been fitted, it pushes the lens off easily snapping the plastic mount to do so,

There are a series of button presses to disable this as many use the 35-80 as a body cap as it's cheaper than a real one and less easy to lose and if the camera is accidently switched on - bang goes your $2 body cap..

They couldn't implement this for junk metal mount lenses (like the 35-135USM) for obvious reasons so you're safe with the likes of the 28-135IS even if Canon should get wind that your underground movement has started using the lens with the 1D .. The latest firmware included the 28-90, though the 28-80 is still safe due to the existance of an L in this focal range..

Hope this helps ...

LOL

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 967
Re: Here are some samples

except those that are very underexposed.

Which ones are the "underexposed" and what exactly makes you think that they are "underexposed"?

Andi

Scott Olds Senior Member • Posts: 1,112
LOL, that's great

And I was going to suggest that the 1D and 1Ds came up with error 135 when a 28-135 was placed on it.

I HAVE a 35-80 somewhere (it came with an old rebel that I have). The thought about the body cap is great!

Adam-T wrote:

The way some people talk here, you'd think that the 1D gave an
error code when you put a 28-135 on it.

there is a pin in the mount which is connected to a solenoid in the
body on the 1D and 1DS, if the camera detects that a 35-80 has been
fitted, it pushes the lens off easily snapping the plastic mount to
do so,

There are a series of button presses to disable this as many use
the 35-80 as a body cap as it's cheaper than a real one and less
easy to lose and if the camera is accidently switched on - bang
goes your $2 body cap..

They couldn't implement this for junk metal mount lenses (like the
35-135USM) for obvious reasons so you're safe with the likes of the
28-135IS even if Canon should get wind that your underground
movement has started using the lens with the 1D .. The latest
firmware included the 28-90, though the 28-80 is still safe due to
the existance of an L in this focal range..

Hope this helps ...

LOL

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Re: Here are some samples

Lens distortion doesn't seem to be bad at all at 1.3x from what I can see - the 28-105 was a bit barrely full frame, I'll have to see how the IS fares ..

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Yeah -->

You can even take pictures with it so long as you don't want to print bigger than 5x3 ... If I had a spare body I'd use one, they've got to be better than one of those "Lens Caps" (the body cap with a fixed lens in it for £20) as it has AF ..

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Greg M Veteran Member • Posts: 4,268
Re: ...

Andreas Steiner wrote:

The move to FF might happen faster than you maybe expect.

What evidence supports this? Just wishful thinking?

No. The 1Ds came as a surprise as well, didn't it? Did you read the
following, for example?...
htp: www.dpreview.com/news/0302/03021303atmel8mpccd.asp

Bad link but I found it. That won't be used in a DSLR any time soon. It looks like, from the apps mentioned, it is very expensive. I'm not saying it won't be possible but it will be cost prohibitive for a long time.

Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Forrest -scapes...
RichW Forum Pro • Posts: 12,782
A Coke bottlle will do the same. :) (nt)
n/t
 RichW's gear list:RichW's gear list
Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EF 20mm f/2.8 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +6 more
Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Re: Adam-T lens review page?

begrudgingly about Lee Rothman being right about the 16-35L or
going on about the '[Greg-M and Adam-2' side of the coin regarding
the 28-135IS would think I've totally lost it (maybe I have - LOL)
and I can see them asking in Photo magazines what a "Forrest
Landscape" is .....

Actually, I've been writing a 16-35L review for the past few days, for my web site... With plenty of "Forrest Landscapes" in it. People keep asking about "sharpness at 16 mm" this and "flare" that ... I thought I'd put it all together in one place with plenty of crops, instead of trying to bring a million individual pictures to work and upload them to my page, then post them here...

Thing is, I only have three lenses ... and it'll be a while before I have any more. You, on the other hand, have used about half of Canon's line-up. I think a page with your thoughts on all of these lenses ( especially how they compare to each other ) would be very helpful to a lot of people.

Might want to start of by defining exactly what it is that makes a "good" lens, though. Sharpness wide-open? Sharpness the lens is capable of? Color rendition and contrast? Bokeh? Flare resistance? AF speed and accuracy? MF? Exposure accuracy? Hunting? Optical speed? Price? Value? Anyway, there are a million factors; I think knowing what's important to you ( and in what order ) would be pretty useful, too...

AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Re: Adam-T lens review page?

Actually, I've been writing a 16-35L review for the past few days,
for my web site... With plenty of "Forrest Landscapes" in it.
People keep asking about "sharpness at 16 mm" this and "flare" that
... I thought I'd put it all together in one place with plenty of
crops, instead of trying to bring a million individual pictures to
work and upload them to my page, then post them here...

Sounds damn good to me!. You've come to the 16-35L as your first zoom and first L so have a different perspective which is good as you won't be full of the "it's dissapointing next to my XX-XXX or XX-XX F2.8L" I hate recommending this lens to 28-70L, 80-200L and 70-200L IS owners as you know what the reaction is going to be, you have a hard time explaining that it doesn't get any better than this.. I look forward to your page

I have any more. You, on the other hand, have used about half of
Canon's line-up. I think a page with your thoughts on all of these
lenses ( especially how they compare to each other ) would be
very helpful to a lot of people.

Yeah - Official Lens tester to the Film EOS community - "Just stick it on my D60, we'll see if it's ok" .. My problem is time for a page, Yeah, you'll see posts dotted throughout the day here because when I've been on a shoot this is where I do my post processing and CD burning for the clients, so hopping on DPR is a mouse click away - I'll have to get something done though ;-)...

Might want to start of by defining exactly what it is that makes a
"good" lens, though. Sharpness wide-open? Sharpness the lens is
capable of? Color rendition and contrast? Bokeh? Flare
resistance? AF speed and accuracy? MF? Exposure accuracy?
Hunting? Optical speed? Price? Value? Anyway, there are a
million factors; I think knowing what's important to you ( and in
what order ) would be pretty useful, too...

Yep and they're all Valid in different amounts to different people - this is how I did the 28-135IS one and 70-210USM one - people can make up their own minds then as to which strengths suit them best, EG, if you need a Telephoto zoom which is sharp wide open at all apertures, is cheap and capable of being used to defend yourself from crack crazed muggers, then a used 80-200L is ideal - if you just need so,mething sharp and capable to plug up the hole til L glass beckons AND still be useful afterwards, buy a pair of Reeboks and a 50 F1.8 .. as you say Difficult.

Andi remarked that my reviews are too shallow in that I missed a lot out - Heck, he's right - I'm NOT Fred Miranda or Phil Greenspun, but I hope that they may have been interesing non the less..

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Thats what I said ! - Canon 35-80 - ;-)

the only canon lens where you have to drink the contents first - OR the only drinks container with autofocus depending on how you look at it ...

All these people who moan about this and that being soft etc ought to spend a day with a 35-80, 35-135USM, 28-80 II, III, IV or V or 28-90 and see what Soft / CA / distortion etc ARE all about - LOL

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Re: Adam-T lens review page?

Sounds damn good to me!. You've come to the 16-35L as your first
zoom and first L so have a different perspective which is good as
you won't be full of the "it's dissapointing next to my XX-XXX or
XX-XX F2.8L" I hate recommending this lens to 28-70L, 80-200L and
70-200L IS owners as you know what the reaction is going to be, you
have a hard time explaining that it doesn't get any better than
this.. I look forward to your page

Actually, I've been writing ( what I think is ) a pretty thorough, merciless review. I mention that the 16-35L is my softest, most expensive lens. But it's also responsible for 90% of my portfolio. I'm not sure if it's ever capable of critically sharp images ( like my 100/2.8 Macro is at f/2.8 at any focus distance ), but my D60 would be dramatically less useful without this lens.

I'm also getting into it's uses, issues, crops to show what you can expect from it... Trying to be clinical, but useful at the same time. There's data, and then there's information...

Eventually I'll do this for all my lenses. Actually, it seemed like a pretty good way to attract more viewers to my site.

Noel Carboni Senior Member • Posts: 1,313
Hear Hear! 28-135 is Great! Bah to all others!

Adam-T wrote:

Summary ----- A good all round lens with excellent range and IS

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who thinks this, and I sure am glad my first one was an excellent copy.

Thanks for sharing your findings, Adam.

-Noel

AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Re: Adam-T lens review page?

merciless review. I mention that the 16-35L is my softest, most
expensive lens.

Mine too (in the "work" lenses) - except that I don't have the excuse of it being the only Zoom ..

I'm not sure if it's ever capable of critically sharp images (

It's a wierd lens which you have to learn, it's definately NOT point and shoot like the 28-70 and 80-200Ls which are virtually faultless no matter what aperture or focal length you use .. I thought my 16-35 was soft on the left side, but other shots are soft on the right depending on the angle of view and scenery (even down to f5.6 - I don't remember a time when this lens got down to F8 or lower), so even at relatively slow apertures you have to be real careful about DOF (I figured this is why you shoot your 'scapes at F11).. To ME it's the best of a very bad bunch (UWA Zooms) rather than a holy grail like the 28-70 or 80-200 ..

Best of luck with the page.

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Derek Hawkins Senior Member • Posts: 2,049
Images remind me of my CP5700.....

Only a crappy lens could do that to a D60. However, I'd buy one for my wife since she like you (apparently) wouldn't notice the difference.

Adam-T wrote:

I thought that as I had the opportunity to get a copy of this lens
from an Elan-7E owning friend who was upgrading to L glass for a

AdamT
OP AdamT Forum Pro • Posts: 58,589
Re: Images remind me of my CP5700.....

Only a crappy lens could do that to a D60. However, I'd buy one for
my wife since she like you (apparently) wouldn't notice the
difference.

If you were sad enough to buy a CP5700 then you deserve a wife with a proper camera! , it's obvious who takes the real photographs in your family !..

-- hide signature --

Please ignore the Typos, i'm the world's worst Typist

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

 AdamT's gear list:AdamT's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85
Forrest Forum Pro • Posts: 14,666
Finicky...

We were just talking about this the other day... Optical quality -wise, I think the 100/2.8 Macro is my best lens. Probably not quite as sharp as the 50/1.4, but it's colors are much closer to the L than to the 50, it's critically sharp at all apertures, this and that. The 16-35L is easily capable of creating wonderful or aweful photographs, depending on you. I'm finding mine really needs that tripod, f/11, being level, and all that. If I do what I know I have to, I'm incredibly happy with the results I get. If I try to cut any corners, I'm usually not happy. I have to work for the quality I want... It's my favorite lens, but it's also my most finicky.

The camera being level is so much more important, just because you're so much closer. Depth of field always shocks me with this lens, because I expect it to run deep, but when you get right up close to your subject, it's not . You really do have to stop down. In fact, I have a ( bad ) landscape shot of this thistle standing in front of the Teton range, where even at f/11 I could only have one or the other subject sharp. I'm confident that my lens itself is sharp enough at f/4, but it's pretty often there isn't enough DOF here.

Anyway, the short end of it is that I pretty much agree with everything you say below...

It's a wierd lens which you have to learn, it's definately NOT
point and shoot like the 28-70 and 80-200Ls which are virtually
faultless no matter what aperture or focal length you use .. I
thought my 16-35 was soft on the left side, but other shots are
soft on the right depending on the angle of view and scenery (even
down to f5.6 - I don't remember a time when this lens got down to
F8 or lower), so even at relatively slow apertures you have to be
real careful about DOF (I figured this is why you shoot your
'scapes at F11).. To ME it's the best of a very bad bunch (UWA
Zooms) rather than a holy grail like the 28-70 or 80-200 ..

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads