JoeM Loc: Sacramento, California

Need Advice!!! I have a lens (Canon 28-135 Macro) that when I fell hit the ground won’t zoom. I had this on my old Canon A2e Film camera that I haven’t used in about 15 years, but fits onto my new Canon’s 60D.
When I purchased the Canon 60D, the sales persons told me that the lenses they produce now are different now because of DSLR’s. I took his advice and purchase the 16-135 lens but had put the 28-135Macro on my 60D when I fell. The camera is still great shape but not that lens.
Is this true? Are the lenses for DSLR’s different now and more suited for DSLR's? Canon is still selling the 28-135 Macro lens.
I had it appraised to have it fixed for a general cost of from $175-230.
Is it worth the fix?

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

I shoot Nikon so take this with a grain of salt. Went on ebay and the lenses on there are the same price as the fix.
Erv

snowbear

I have heard that (some) of the older lenses will not fir the new dSLRs. I, too, shoot Nikon so I don't know the specifics - I think the AE lenses don't work. There may be an adapter available.

If you still have your manual, check it to see if they have a compatibility chart (Nikon does this) that tells what lenses work, and with what limitations.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

You didn't specify which older Canon lens series you have that is broken. I assume it's the FD series lens that became obsolete in the 1990's and was replaced by the EF (electronic focus) series that are used on the EOS film and digital bodies.

You should have the best knowledge about how the lens works on your Canon DSLR and why you continue to use it. As I recall, the FD series lenses don't have auto-focus capability. If you have an EF lens with equivalent zoom range, ask yourself, "What more would I get out of this FD lens that I can't get out of the EF lens?" If the answer is, "very little," then you've just answered your own question.

gessman Loc: Colorado

The older EF lens like your 28-135 are generally considered to be not as sharp with digital but the big difference is that the size of the sensor on your camera makes the 28-135 have to be multiplied by 1.6x to get the effective range of the lens on your camera. It effectively becomes a 45-216mm lens. I have the 28-135 I got on the same film camera you have and it isn't quite as sharp a lens as a top of the line Canon L lens such as the 24-70 or the 24-105 but it isn't all that far behind them. The point here is that you can buy a new one for almost the cost to repair the one you broke. To see a comparative analysis of the 28-135 v. 24-105L, go to http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

CAM1017 Loc: Chiloquin, Oregon

It might be worth it to have it repaired. The quality on the new lens may be better but I expect your old lens if fixed would also be very good. If you were happy before the drop you would probable be happy after it was fixed. It might actually perform better having been cleaned and adjusted.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Yes, the lenses are different as someone pointed out.

And as someone has already said...if you thought that lens was the sharpest thing since sliced bread before the break...then spending 200 to get it fixed is no big deal. You'd be hard pressed to get a zoom lens for 200.00

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

But for the same price you get a new lens and a warranty. Warranty it's self is worth it.
Erv

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

it depends on what lens we are talking about. If you want to get an EF-S lens that only has a f/3.5 or f/4.0 minimum aperture and is variable...then yes...you can.

But getting a quality EF lens that has IS and USM ain't gonna happen for 200.00.

If the OP is talking about the Canon 18-135 EF-S f/3.5-5.6 budget lens then yes...it's doable.

If he's talking about the EF 18-135 macro USM then he's talking about 375.00.

JoeM Loc: Sacramento, California

You all make very good points. Your comments really make me stop and try to reason out 1st why I purchase the Canon 60D and why I didn't purchase a full sensor camera. As a newbie, I did not consider all the ramifications of my purchase. As to the lens that I've broken....I will have to think about it longer and make no sudden choices. You've all given me some great help.
(This is a great forum) Thanks for your thoughts.

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

Joe, I think you are over thinking this. If you were a pro I would say go to FX. How ever you are not a pro. And if you went on vacation with a pro and stood next to him on vacation taking pictures. I don't think you could tell the difference in your pictures, if you were both using the same lenses. Good glass will make any camera seem like a new one when you look at the quality of the print. I shoot DX, and I have older lenses from my film days, They are all ok. The last film camera was a F6 and I started buying good glass. And I could see the difference. I now shoot a D300s Nikon. And I am still buying good glass. But is it worth it? I guess, but then I put one of my older lenses on and use it, can I tell the difference? Some times, but most of the time no. Is it worth the money for good glass, for me yes. Photography has been my passion for 45 years or so. Digital has re-sparked my passion. Don't sell your camera short because it is DX. Think of it this way, no mater what lenses you have, it is you holding the camera back from good pictures. 99.9% of the time :)
Erv
Sorry for the long post!

JoeM Loc: Sacramento, California

Thank you for that Erv!
I'm not a pro but never-the-less I'm aiming to be as good as a pro. I'll probably never want the to work that the pro's have to do. But I'm just a guy that has an ambition to learn as much and try as hard as I can to learn to take "Great" photographys. I have no ambition to sell or market my products.
Also don't want to spend my money and get less product if I can wait to save more to purchase a better product that will "help" me a better photographer.

Erv Loc: Medina Ohio

About the only good advise my Dad ever gave me was- always buy the best, if you can't afford it, SAVE for it.
Erv