I owned, used, and loved the 28-135 when I used a Canon D60. Today,
if I went with Canon, I would choose the 24-105 IS instead; it seems
to be noticeably sharper, it is somewhat wider, it has constant
aperture, and it is about the same bulk and weight.
BTW, I didn´t "go with Canon" this time; I bought a Nikon D200 and
the Nikon 18-200 VR. This lens is noticeably better than the Canon
28-135, in spite of the vastly increaded range. But that´s beside
the point for a Canon owner; the thing is that lens design seems to
have gone forward since that 28-135 was conceived, and the Canon
24-105 is a newer generation, and shows it..
But I had no issues with my 28-135 at the time. I t was OK
optically, and very convenient to carry as a sole lens.
Regards,
Per
Per Öfverbeck
http://ofverbeck.se
"In a world without walls or fences, who needs Windows or Gates?"
19 jul 2006 kl. 05.16 skrev rebphoto:
Here is a better lens for you at B&H.
Canon USA Price : $ 419.95
Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Image
Stabilizer USM Autofocus Lens
Take care, and I hope you solve your issue.
Les Baldwin
I did take a look at this lens and my friend
(a pro photographer)has this lens and really likes it.
I have also noticed that Canon has a 28-200mm
lens same aperature range "No IS" and is about
$50-60 less money.
I have also taken a peak at some Tameron lenses.........
Too many choices!
Russ
