JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is a standard lens for FF and APS-C, manufactured from 1998 to 2017 (discontinued). The focus is done by Ultrasonic AF Motor (Ring-USM), it has image stabilization. The average price, when it has been added to the JuzaPhoto database, is 369 €;
50 users have given it an average vote of 7.8 out of 10.
MOUNT
This lens is available with the following mounts:
Canon EF: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Canon EF.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 217000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:I have had this lens since 2006, from my first Canon 30D (on which it was actually little wide-angle, but I survived). He accompanied me to discover photography and even now (on 5D II), although not very often, it comes in handy. The sharpness at TA is not great, but closing a little improves, but above all, as always, depends what you have to do: for small prints or situations from immediate jpeg, the results will definitely not be to be despised, with good colors and sharpness more than enough. Stabilization is not as phenomenal as the most modern, but for the years it has, it does its job well. Little bulky and light (although, as mentioned, a bit "plastic"), it is a very good and really economical lens to start to become familiar with the various focals and then eventually evolve towards something of higher quality. Distortion present, but not exaggerated (less than that of more recent targets). What to say: it will not be a super top ever, but for the figures it is around, it maintains in my opinion a rather interesting value for money and for example associated with an old FF (5D I or II) can allow with very little expense to start to experience.
Opinion:Bought a dozen years ago. It's basically a 4x zoom, including pretty much all the focal lengths you need. A unique lens for unpretentious photos, or even full hd static videos, to be used especially on NOT particularly resolute FFs, such as the 6D, which compensates with the most high ISO tightness the low brightness of the lens. For me, however, the advantage is another: it is the best lens when, in cycling competitions, at the first step of the shots there is the swarm of athletes. Then it becomes more valuable than 24-105, because depending on the moments you are able to even take double photos, when then comes some isolated athlete, without pulling out a zoom canvas. In these situations you shoot in medium or small jpeg, so all defects found become secondary. In other words, it is not held for amateur pleasure, but for necessity in some areas of work. It does not have a remarkable establishment, because it is not evolved.
Opinion:In the end, I recount it after giving it away for lack of use, due to the qualitative limits of the images it is giving. It is an optic that might have a sense on the film, in which (although final) was designed: very few potential buyers A non-professional and handymanlike lens like this would have focused on looking at the frames with the magnifying glass, and the versatility given by the broad focal range, the stabilizer and the internal USM MAF could therefore effectively represent predominant factors in evaluating the Lens for this kind of users (of which I also belonged in all respects). Digital digital instead, especially if in FF, the optical limits prevail over any other evaluation, and it is a fact that the distortion, pronounced at barrel To 28mm and 135mm bearing, vignetting, 28mm to TA and also present with a diaphragm closure, and especially sharpness to the edges, really mo It is all about the focal, and sometimes embarrassingIn some situations, because linked to a clear spherical aberration of the MAF plane, they do not allow the sharpness at the center of the image, generally good and even good around the 50mm, to improve a totally negative judgment. The photos taken are in fact immancabilmente afflicted now from one, now on the other, now from all the listed defects, with the aggravating of a blur nervous and unpleasant in diaphragmatic shots, because of the only 6 lamella from the straight edge Rather than rounded. Finally, every time (ever more rare after purchasing the Eos 5D) that I was forced to use this goal, I was then able to count on more or less unsatisfactory images on the quality level, so much to make me think "Acci ... if I did this with 24, with 50, with 85 ..." rnThere is nothing to do: since, with the advent of digital, the detailed view Is at the reach of everyone (magnificationTo 100% on a good monitor), this optic in my view has lost its reason to exist. Much more if you consider the qualitative abyss that there is compared to the very much more expensive zoom, you want on the new you want on the used.rn plasticine and ballerina construction, with the front part of the lens that moves in millimeters inside The barrel, and the continuous buildup of dust between the inner lenses, strident with aesthetic and somewhat pretentious sizing, complete a really bad picture for me. I left it without any regrets.rn
Pros:Stabilization, fast engine, design, compactness, sharpness, size and strength, focal.
Cons:little light, barrel down alone, 28mm maybe a little 'pochetti.
Opinion:I bought this lens recently and I must say that perhaps they have made too many bad reviews ... sure it's not a 24-105 and has a lot of difettucci, but as zoom is really good, sharp enough, but not too much. ... stabilization is in my opinion excellent, per se is very robust and also large and easy to handle ... a little dark but not so much as the classic 18-55 on FF can be a good buy for all do very little and be useful in many situations!
Cons:Dust enters easily, zoom that goes down alone
Opinion:It is a couple of months that I use, produces beautiful photos with my 1200d, hungry for light, pictures indoors and at night it is the duty flash, good sharpness from 50 to 100 t, from 5.6 up good on almost all focal lengths. noisy and less effective stabilizer than the 18-55, found used complete with hood original 170 x euro and I would say the price was a good buy, when holding the machine on the zoom neck down by itself and I noticed that the dust easily enters the interior of the target, however, so far without compromising photos. Also convenient manual focus even with af inserted.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
