Canon 28-135mm

[br.avery]

Will this lens be good for natural lighting, outdoors, fashion photography?

 

[stagi]

I would actually recommend a 50 1.4 instead of the 28-135. Are you going to be using it on a full frame or cropped camera? The 50 on a cropped camera is a great portrait lens if you are going to be doing fashion and you have a great depth of field being able to shoot at 1.4. The optics on that lens is actually very good, great sharpness and color.

You can also look into the 85 1.8 which is another amazing lens. Prime lenses will give you excellent quality and are a really good value.

 

[Techhie]

Depending on your needs, that lens has proven to be one of the best quality general purpose lenses outside of Canon's Luxury lineup.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

 

[JFreak]

Will this lens be good for natural lighting, outdoors, fashion photography?

For a general-purpose, jack-of-all-trades kind of lens, yes it's versatile. But you might want something faster for fashion photography; if that general-purpose lens fits all other needs, then just buy it and grab a 50mm f/1.8 as well.

 

[romanaz]

I loved my 28-135 lens. Its good nice bokeh @ 135 f/5.6 for what I was expecting. I was sad to sell it, but I didn't use it enough to justify keeping it. Its a nice all around guy.

 

[TheFuzz]

i'm looking to sell the one that came with my 7D. i've never used it. anyone know of a good online marketplace for such things? don't really want to deal with craigslist.

 

[br.avery]

I already shoot with a 50 1.8 but all of my pictures come out really soft when i shoot with a wide aperture on Av.. any tips on keeping the sharpness?

 

[jbernie]

I got the 28-135 with my 40D, I have yet to expand my lens collection beyond a 50mm 1.4 and I am overall very happy with the lens, it isn't perfect, but it is hardly a bad lens... yes compared to your L's it is whimpy I know that

So long as your lighting is strong you should go fine, failing that, a tripod will help to some degree.

 

[HBOC]

If you are serious about fashion, you'd be better off with a different lens. What is your budget? The 28-135 is decent, but it is a slow lens for indoors. You'd be better off getting a tamron 28-70 f/2.8 I think for portrait work.

I would even go as far as to second the 50 1.4 prime, or even the 85mm 1.8.
I think for what you have listed as your primary uses, a fast lens is top of the list..

the 17-50 2.8 is an astounding lens, don't know if that is in your budget...

 

[mtbdudex]

If you are serious about fashion, you'd be better off with a different lens. What is your budget? The 28-135 is decent, but it is a slow lens for indoors. You'd be better off getting a tamron 28-70 f/2.8 I think for portrait work.

I would even go as far as to second the 50 1.4 prime, or even the 85mm 1.8.
I think for what you have listed as your primary uses, a fast lens is top of the list..

the 17-50 2.8 is an astounding lens, don't know if that is in your budget...

Timely, I've been looking at the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 vs 28-70 f/2.8 tamron.

Serious coin diff, $1.3k Canon vs $450 tamron

So obviously there is a diff to justify $800 more for the Canon.
For non-pro usage, home kids inside shots, etc, the tamron seems the value way to go.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...sories&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG#reviews

Definitely the tamron a step up from the kit 18-55 lens.

 

[splitpea]

I already shoot with a 50 1.8 but all of my pictures come out really soft when i shoot with a wide aperture on Av.. any tips on keeping the sharpness?

Most lenses are at their sharpest around F8, so you're never going to get brilliant sharpness at f1.8. Also remember that DOF is very shallow with that wide an aperture, so you have to make sure your focus is flawless and that neither your camera nor your subject move between focus and shot.

 

[HBOC]

Timely, I've been looking at the Canon 28-70 f/2.8 vs 28-70 f/2.8 tamron.

Serious coin diff, $1.3k Canon vs $450 tamron

So obviously there is a diff to justify $800 more for the Canon.
For non-pro usage, home kids inside shots, etc, the tamron seems the value way to go.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...sories&A=details&Q=&sku=284399&is=REG#reviews

Definitely the tamron a step up from the kit 18-55 lens.

well, the price difference is subjective. I mean for me, it would be worth $400 more, certainly not $800, BUT also, the price of this lens has gone up, both new and in resale. They used to go for $900-1000, now used i see them for $1100...

The advantages of the Canon over the Tamron are better AF (also depends on the body you are using), build quality, better optics (again not $800), and ofcourse resale is better and IT is a sought after lens..

 

[lexvo]

Most lenses are at their sharpest around F8, so you're never going to get brilliant sharpness at f1.8. Also remember that DOF is very shallow with that wide an aperture, so you have to make sure your focus is flawless and that neither your camera nor your subject move between focus and shot.

+1
The lens has to be stopped down a bit to get good sharpness, say at f/2.8 or so. Sharpness will improve when stopped down further.

As for the 28-135:
The 28-135 is a very fine all-around lens. Stopped down, it is quite sharp. The IS comes in really handy in a lot of situations. I mostly used this lens if I want to take just one lens with me, i.e. on short trips.

On both the wide and the tele end, it is a little soft though. On these ends, it has to be stopped down for a sharper image. I don't find sharpness a big problem with this lens, IMHO it could do with a bit better contrast. OTOH, the contrast can mostly be corrected easily in PS.

For low light/available light work, it may be a bit too slow. If I remember correctly f/5.6 sets in around 85mm or so.