# How about a new 28-135mm?



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 29, 2013)

With all this talk of new lenses... How about a new 28-135mm? I use this lens ALL THE TIME for events and walking about. It's nice that I can get some nice landcape shots and still use it for some close-ups of various people and items.

The 24-105mm f4 L is really nice, but it doesn't have enough reach and it's f4... f2.8 would have to be the absolute minimum... 

For retail of $400, the 28-135mm is a REALLY nice lens. While maybe not the sharpest, certainly versatile and good image characteristics. Canon, how about dropping the 24-105, beefing up the 28-135 and putting some L glass in there with a f2.8-4?


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 29, 2013)

I prefer 24mm over 28mm to sacrifice the 135mm length. The 28-135mm is a pretty duff lens and never liked mine enough to use it over my primes. To upgrade it would make it much more expensive than the budget lens it is.

Personally, a F/2.8 24-105L IS would be preferred in my uses.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 29, 2013)

Primes just aren't as useful as a zoom in groups and events. There will be plenty of times when you are in-between focal distances. Sure you can crop at the high end but then you lose some picture quality. Three camera's? Um, no. I may use two for a 50mm and a zoom...


----------



## Camerajah (Apr 29, 2013)

not good for more than 10 megapixel my pov


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 30, 2013)

The 28-135 is not wide enough for crop or FF, but is cheap to make. It does not have a wide aperture either. The 24-105 blows it away, why make a more expensive lens that few photographers would buy?


----------



## bradfordswood (Apr 30, 2013)

I got my copy of this lens for $250 and it was a great deal. It's been great for me as a general purpose lens. I borrowed a friend's 24-105L and didn't see $600 of difference. Although the extra 4mm on the wide end is nice for landscapes, group shots, etc.

I would definitely be interested in an updated version, but wouldn't count on it. And yes it would not be the great deal that it is now if it was upgraded


----------



## Truffaut (Apr 30, 2013)

I used the 28-135 before I purchased a 5D3 with a 24-105. I did some test shots with both lenses and was surprised how similiar they were. Except at the wide end, where the 28-135 was clearly weaker. But otherwise I liked it very much in terms of sharpness and colour. But of course, the build quality is not comparable-and I appreciate very much the possibility to go out taking pictures when the weather gets rough. But I admit I miss the extra reach of the 28-135 at the long end..So, I would be interested in an upgrade.


----------



## yogi (Apr 30, 2013)

I like the 28-135 range also. It is not in my gear list, but i still own one and have taken many photos that i am happy with. Maybe Canon could make a 24-135L with is and sealed. Probably not, since so many already like the 24-105L.


----------



## pwp (Apr 30, 2013)

Ah yes, the 28-135. I had one back in the film days and it was kind of useful in events environments. My first DSLR, a Canon D30 (not to be confused with the Canon EOS 30D, released in 2006) accepted the lens pretty well but when I went the FF 1Ds in late 2002 I eBayed the lens almost immediately as the FF sensor absolutely punished this lens.

Yet the 28-135 has soldiered on for another decade of mediocrity. It's relevance was overshadowed by the 24-105 introduced in 2005. I guess the update I'd like to see would take the form of an f/4 L24-135is as an update to both the 28-135 and the 24-105.

-PW


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2013)

RGomezPhotos said:


> Primes just aren't as useful as a zoom in groups and events. There will be plenty of times when you are in-between focal distances. Sure you can crop at the high end but then you lose some picture quality. Three camera's? Um, no. I may use two for a 50mm and a zoom...



I'm simply saying that the IQ wasn't up to par on the 28-135mm. It's IQ wasn't enough that I never used it much over cheaper primes. Then again, I've shoot pretty much prime exclusive since my minolta maxxum AF. I really don't like the 28-135 but I like my 24-105L.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (Apr 30, 2013)

I rented the 24-105 and didn't notice much of an improvement over the 28-135. The 24-105 is definitely better made. At the minimum, these lenses are 8 years old...


----------



## tomscott (Apr 30, 2013)

Optically the 24-105mm is better, especially at larger apertures. F4 throughout the Zoom range is much more useful than 3.5-5.6 especially at the long end. It quickly moves from 3.5-5.6 so you loose light and variable aperture lenses are just a pain. 24mm is much more of a big deal than 135mm on the longer end for me. Easier to have a 70-200mm which I always keep with me. 

Also the 24-105mm is weather sealed and built like a brick in comparison. I never saw the value in the 28-135mm it was rubbish on crop because its like 38mm on the wide end and on FF the IQ isnt good enough. Value wise.. if your on a budget fair enough but its pointless adding a high quality body to a poor lens, better off buying a crop camera and a better lens. 

As for upgrading it I would prefer Canon spent R&D time on an upgrade to the 24-105mm maybe to 24-135mm F4 L that will sell like hot cakes. If they made a 2.8 version of that...  that would be the perfect walk around. But they would never do it.. as it will make 3-4 lenses irrelevant, so il keep dreaming.

In fact im surprised they are still making the 28-135mm.


----------



## CanNotYet (Apr 30, 2013)

Yes, I want this. Consumer (not budget or L) level lens 24-135 f/2.8-4 IS USM retailing for 699$. Make it so.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 30, 2013)

pwp said:


> I guess the update I'd like to see would take the form of an f/4 L24-135is as an update to both the 28-135 and the 24-105.
> 
> -PW



+1

f/2.8 would be even better, but as Tom Scott pointed out, Canon would never do this since it would make several of their top selling lenses obsolete. Also, it would be incredibly expensive


----------



## sunseeker (Apr 30, 2013)

That would be my dream lens.

I come from 7D + 15-85mm, and it was my ideal focal length range. Now I switched to FF (5D3), getting enormous improvements on low light that I really needed, but I'm always swapping 24-70 with 70-200 (that I rarely use at full extension).

A 24-135mm would perfectly cover like the 15-85mm did on APS-C (it would be enough 28-135 in my case)... To me it would be also enough f/4, fair quality (not necessarily super-sharp) with updated IS. I could afford the weight, and I could pay up to 1500$.


----------



## Jim K (Apr 30, 2013)

I got the 28-135 as the kit lens with my 50D and thought of it as a "normal to 200" that went nicely with the 100-400 I bought at the same time. But I lacked a wide angle and had to use my Minolta bridge camera for a while when I had to go wide. Added a 10-22 in six months.

Got a 5D3 a year ago with the 24-105 kit lens. Would rather crop the 105 f/4 down to a 135 f/4 than shoot the 135 f/5.6. And there is no way to "uncrop" the 28 to a 24. Since I now own the 24-105 there is no way I would buy a new 28-135 f/4 L or even a 24-135 f/4 L. don't know how heavy an f/2.8 version of either of them would be but probable more than I would want to carry for what I shoot.


----------



## emag (Apr 30, 2013)

'twas the kit lens with my old 40D and I've hardly used it. The times I have, I realized it was not as horrible as I originally thought, but a great lens it definitely is not and I'm glad I didn't pay full price for the lens alone. I keep thinking of replacing it with a 24-105 and just haven't done it. I shudder to think what Canon would charge for a 28-135II. It's a nice walkabout range, daytime lens, adequate for the task if uninspiring.


----------



## Frodo (May 4, 2013)

I was happy with the 28-135 on film. I was happy with the 28-135 on my 20D (matched nicely with 10-22). Hated the 28-135 when I went to a 5D. Replaced it with a 24-105 - huge difference. 

See what Canon did when they "updated" the 24-105? Produced a 24-70/4 with less range, similar quality and double the price. I say leave the 24-105 alone. Be careful what you ask for when updating the 28-135!

Me, I'd rather have a 17 prime (2.8 preferable, but f4 okay) as the 20/2.8 I had was not great, and there are plenty of reports on the limitations of the 17-40 at 17mm.


----------



## Vossie (May 4, 2013)

I've used the 28-135 on my Eos 3 film camera. When I went digital with the 10D, I did not like the range too much on the wide end and after some sold it in favor of the 17-85. I have no direct comparison vs the 24-105 that I own now. Besides IQ differences, 4 mm on the wide end it quite a lot. F/4 is already quite slow, so 5.6 would not be what I would be looking for. I'm actually considering to switch to the 24-70 2.8, sacrificing some reach to the benefit of IQ and an extra stop of light.

So for me a new 28-135 would thus not be appealing.


----------

