Any one have any experieance with Canon 28-135 IS USM?

[Paul]

I am trying to decided what new lense to buy. I am stuck in my decision to buy a 17-40 or 28-135. Pro's COns? Anyone use either?

[MN Shutterbug]

Steve's the expert on Canon, of course. However, he'll probably want to know what you intend to use the lens for. There is quite a difference in focal lengths. If you want it for scenics, you'll definitely want the 17-40. Once you factor in the 1.6 factor, 28mm is not going to give you anything near a wide angle.

I'm just trying to prepare you in advance for one of the questions Steve will probably have for you.

[Dbl]

Paul as X has mentioned what is the intended use? He is right on the 17-40 is a nice landscape lens and group portrait lens. The 28-135 to me is more of a walk around type lens. I have the 17-40 and use it a tremendous amount, sharp, beautiful colors. X is correct in saying the 28 will not be wide enough on the 30D, I have a 28-75/2.8 that even on the Mark II with a 1.3 crop factor is not wide enough. You will get some distortion that is easily corrected in PS at the wide end.

I would strongly encourage you to make sure you test drive the 17-40 to make sure you have a good copy. There are some soft ones right out of the box floating around out there.

[Paul]

Well for the most part it will be my short distance lense. Thinking of the multiplier of aprox 1.5 on my XTi I would maybe think that 17 is a good start. I went to the most worthless camera store on the planet today in our local mall. Store starts with an R ends with Z. Any way they had not one single canon ef or ef-s lense of any kind on the shelf Their reply was of course, We could order it for you. No dumby I want to play with it first. Like buying a car, test b4 you drive.

[Steve Foss]

Paul, if you want to test drive (always a good thing) and have time to wait, head to National Camera in the TC.

Otherwise, it's online or having a store order it, me bucko.

You've already gotten the same advice I'd have given you. I own one of those lenses (the 17-40) and have used the 28-135 several times. The 17-40 is probably the way to go. If you guy the other, there will be quite a few times you want to set up for a wide angle shot, whether it's a group of people or a landscape image, and will find that you don't have a wide enough lens. I use ithe 17-40 for group portraiture and wide angle scenery, and it is a complete winner.

[Paul]

I am going to be in the TC in a couple of weeks. where is National at?

[Steve Foss]

Pretty sure they have more than one location. I'd google them.

[WifeKidsandDog]

I haven't had mine for long and did have a 28-135. It's a decent lens if you shoot on the longer end - nice color and contrast - but limiting at 28mm on a 1.6x camera.

I replaced my 28-135 with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, which is a nice lens except the buzzy sound of non USM lenses is like fingers down a chalkboard to me. It also doesn't focus as well as the 17-40 L. I ended up selling the Tamron and getting the Canon. I've hardly used my other two lenses since I got it. It's very versatile.

[finnbay]

I love that bubble blowing black and white! I, too have the 17-40 and use it 70% of the time.

[polarsusd81]

I will second the love of the bubble black and white. That is an awesome shot. I can't comment on the 17-40, but I have the 24-70 and that is on my camera 90% of the time.

[Steve Foss]

That bubble shot is beautifully lit and composed, Cheryl. Great work.