User ID

First I should state that I love
the 28-135 range and use quite
a variety of them. I don't really
need 28-200 or 300.

Despite my unprejudiced outlook,
I'm much happier with the Canon
24-105 IS than with my old, now
gone, Canon 28-135 IS. The loss
of 25% on the long end is, to me,
very well worth the 16% gain on
the short end.

I fail to see why you feel that the
24-70 is Canon's replacement for
28-135. The 24-105 is a current
model and is now up to Version 2.

.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Of course, while the EF 24-105mm L II is a much better lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 throughout the range, it is also bigger, heavier and much more expensive than the EF 28-135mm. Perhaps a better comparison to the 28-135mm would be the Canon EF 24-105mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM at $599.

User ID

I see you point, partially anyway
:-)

I certainly would rather have the
28-105/3.5-5.6 IS than a 24-70,
which would be just too narrow
a range to replace a 28-135 !

.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

One of the many problems of good glass is creating a lens that has multiple focal points, USM and IS. The lens should not be large and cumbersome to use. All of these factors may create problems. As for the focal range this too can be problematic. I hope there are some HOGGERS who have used multiple lens and would like to share their experiences.
As a point of reference, I have several lenses in my bag. They are my primary which is 3.5 28-135mm USM IS, 4 70-300mm IS, 2.8 14mm, and a 3.5 24mm Tilt-shift. Needless to say I have good coverage for most conditions. I welcome suggestions and critiques alike. I definitely enjoy being on the forum and offering what I can share.
Happy Shooting!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You do realize the focus points are in your camera, not your lens, right?

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

If I had wrote focus points, please accept my apology. I meant to write focal point as the markings on the lens. Again, my apology for the error in nomenclature.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I think you mean focal lengths.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The Canon EF 28-135mm is a "sleeper" lens in the line-up. It dates back to the days of film and was finally discontinued in the last year or two. Personally, I think it was just too good and undercut sales of Canon's more expensive 24-105mm lenses.

In fact, the 28-135mm is optically quite good. It's hard to tell apart images made with it or the original 24-70mm f/2.8L. In some ways, the 28-135mm is as good or better than the original EF 24-105L, The 280-135mm has less vignetting at the wide end, just as fast focusing, just as good IS... only isn't as sharp at 135mm as 24-105 at 105mm. They also seem to be similarly durable, although one might expect an L-series to hold up better to use. The 28-135mm is "average" build, often has a slight wobble in the front barrel... of the 3 or 4 copies I've used, one developed a problem with the aperture. But all the others worked fine. The original 24-70/2.8L, original 24-105L and the 28-135mm all develop "zoom creep". The original 24-105L tends to have problems with the flex cables, leading to AF, aperture and IS failures.

I haven't compared with the 24-105L II and it hasn't been around long enough to say if it's more durable than the first version or the 28-135mm. I suspect it is. And it's got much improved IS, as well as the new "Nano USM" focus drive (not faster, but smoother and quieter). But most reviewers aren't wowed by the 24-105L II's image quality... Most say it's pretty similar to the original.

The EF 28-135 has been around a long, long time. And a lot of them were sold "in kit" with various cameras. As a result, it's pretty easy to find a good used one for around $200.

Some people pooh-pooh using a 28-135mm on an APS-C DSLR, but that's where I liked using them best. Paired up with an ultrawide like the Canon EF-S 10-22mm or 10-20mm, or a Tokina 12-24mm or 12-28mm, and you've got a pretty versatile two lens kit. I often carried one or the other of those pairs, plus a 300mm with a 1.4X, when I was going to hike or bike some distance with my gear.

These were shot with one of my 28-135s (on an EOS 7D)...

At 28mm...



At 30mm...



At 38mm...



At 47mm...



At 100mm (I'm pretty happy with a lens when I can count eyelashes!)...



At 117mm...



The 28-135mm is weakest racked all the way out at 135mm, but stopping down a little helps a lot (f/7.1 here.... sorry, not a great shot, just the only one I could find shot at 135mm)...



All the above were shot during a Trail Trials competition.... which involved me hiking around 6 miles up and down hills... without a horse and carrying my gear. This is the type of situation I often swap out heavier gear for lighter, versatile stuff like the 28-135mm.

wetreed

I must agree Tamron is an excellent alternative, especially the G2 series.