 |
|
|||
|
|
BetterPhoto Q&A
To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
 Jane member since: 5/13/2002 |
28-105 mm Without IS vs 28-135 mm With IS Which would be the better purchase -- a 28-105 mm lens without IS or a 28-135 mm lens with IS? I am a novice returning to photography after 20 years (there's a lot of cool new equipment and features out there!) and would like to know which would be the better initial purchase and why. I do expect to add more lenses when time (and cash) increases. Thanks! 5/22/2002 9:25:07 PM |
||
|
|
|||
|
Marilyn member since: 4/17/2002 |
Sorry, this is a question... what is IS?.
5/22/2002 10:24:09 PM |
||
|
|
|||
|
Jane member since: 5/13/2002 |
Image stabilization.
5/23/2002 10:53:38 AM |
||
|
|
|||
Jon Close Contact Jon Jon's Gallery member since: 5/18/2000 |
These two lenses are very similar in sharpness. Both have ring-USM autofocus with full time manual focus, non-rotating front element, distance scale, and metal mounting lug. The 28-135 has, of course, greater zoom range and IS. The 28-105 is smaller and lighter, using common, inexpensive 58mm filters. The 28-135 uses 72mm filters. If you are using it with the smallish Rebel XS, G, or 2000, the 28-135 is large enough to sometimes cast a shadow when used with the low-mounted built-in flash. This is less of a concern on the larger Elan, Elan II/IIe, 7/7e, or the EOS A2/A2E. 5/23/2002 12:10:27 PM |
||
|
|
|||
Richard Jackson Contact Richard Richard's Gallery member since: 6/8/2000 |
Jane, you may have received the answer you were lookng for, but I think that with a focal length of 28-105mm, you really don't need IS. Especially the extra cost that it requires. If you were using a longer focal length, say like something in the area of 70-300mm or 100-400mm, then I would say absolutely, because it is very difficult to hold these lenses steady without a tripod. I think most of our colleagues will agree on this one. I own a Sigma 28-105mm(2.8/4.0) and I get great hand-held shots because the distance at which I'm shooting doesn't require a long focal length. Hope this helps!
6/16/2002 7:11:15 PM |
||
|
|
|||
|
Matt Miller member since: 10/28/2002 |
I own a Canon 28-135 IS f/3.5-5.6 and I'm not that happy with it. I jumped back into photography after 12 years away from it. I bought my equipment without the proper research. Well I bought the 28-135 IS as a cheaper alternative for taken pictures at my neices vollyball. The slower shutter speeds don't work. I'm buying on ebay faster prime lens. The image stablization works, but for what. The lens is big and heavy (for that range). Unless you have a hard time holding a camera still, or plan on shooting low light STATIONARY subjects, get the cheaper and lighter nonIS or faster lens for moving subjects. Matt 10/28/2002 4:59:53 PM |
||
|
|
|||
|
Karl Blessing member since: 3/22/2004 |
The IS feature is not intended for fast moving subjects, it is supposed to allow you to stop down the shutter speed slower, without fear of camera shakes due to lack of light. For example when I'm shooting butterflies in an observatory,and cannot get enough light and do not wish to use the flash (in the manual says do not use flash with IS on, or tripod with IS on, also says do not use from a moving car/transport). I switch on the IS, and use shutter speeds of 1/15 or 1/30 handheld, what would have been rather difficult to do without the IS. For sports photographers, or high speed photographers, IS should not even be a consideration, but probally one of the lower aperture (2.8 or so) L series lens perhaps. More expensive, but will allow alot more light in, to compensate for loss with the higher shutter speeds. The lens was great for me, it allowed for a better standard zoom range over my existing lens (18-55), and with the USM the auto-focus is nearly instant in comparism. Though I will keep my 18-55 around in case I ever need a wide angle (due to the digital EOS magnification factor of 1.6x, a Digital SLR EOS camera, will have the actual look of 28 to 90 on the 18-55, and 44.8 to 216 on the 28-135) 3/22/2004 4:43:08 PM |
||
|
|
|||
Gregory La Grange
gregorylagrange.org member since: 11/11/2003 |
With moving subjects, image stabilization is intended to help with panning. To minimize blur from unintended up and down movement of the camera when panning side to side. It dosen't help blur from slow shutter speed and motion of the subject, like a volleyball game. It helps blur from slow shutter speed and motion of the camera. 3/22/2004 8:38:13 PM |
||
|
|
|||
|
To participate in the Forum, become a BetterPhoto member or Sign In.
|
|||
|
|
Copyright © 1996-2009 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.
