# Canon EF-S 18-135 IS vs. EF 28-135 IS USM



## DB83

I'm looking to get the Canon 7d by the end of the year.  I'm waiting while I gather some more info about it and the lens choices.
I guess there are 2 options in lenses that come as a part of a kit with the camera:
Canon EF-S 18-135 IS
Canon EF 28-135 IS USM

I know the 28-135 is older.  The 18-135 has newer technology.  The owner of a camera shop told me that the 18-135 focuses as fast (or at least almost as fast) as the 28-135 IS USM.  Is this accurate?  How is the picture quality different between the two?  I'm leaning towards the 28-135 because it is EF and could potentially be used on a future full frame, but that's several years down the line and there may be new lenses to consider by then.

If you have tested either (or even better, both) of these lenses, I'd love to know what you thought about them.


----------



## usayit

the 18-135 was just launched by Canon Sept 1st.  As such, you will have a tough time finding anyone with any extensive time behind the lens to really give a good opinion of it.  Even the review sites for Canon stuff haven't posted a review.

With that said, I personally would give the 18-135mm IS a chance.  I like the 28-135mm IS as a walk around lens and I have recommended it many times in the past.. it is a good lens.  On the other hand, the newer 18mm-135mm has the new IS good for 4-stops versus the 10 year old design of the 28mm-135mm.  The 18mm versus the 28mm focal length is a HUGE difference as well... this is especially true on cropped sensored bodies.  

As for IQ, who knows... its up in the air because of the lens' recent release.  I would surmise that it will be similar to the 28-135mm IS.


----------



## Big Mike

> The 18mm versus the 28mm focal length is a HUGE difference as well... this is especially true on cropped sensored bodies.


This is the big point, IMO.

I would not be satisfied with only 28mm as my widest focal length on a crop sensor camera.  I wouldn't be satisfied with only 24mm either.  

I have the EF-S 17-85mm IS, which is basically the EF-*S* version of the EF 28-135mm.  It's a pretty comfortable lens.  I also have a Tamron 17-50mm F2.8, which is a 'better' lens...but I love the range and IS on the 17-85mm.


----------



## DB83

Good point.  I'll wait a while to see if some more reviews on the 18-135 come out.  I'm not looking to buy until later this year anyways.


----------



## ErectedGryphon

If we were talking Full Frame Sensor, I would say 72mm Diameter (28-135) is better than 67mm (18-135), but were talking EF-S so it may not be that big of a difference, since all the glass wont be used anyway. Q: Are you eventually planing on going full frame? With cost coming down on CMOS tech, it may not be long before we see a <$1000 full frame.

The 18-135 does look plastic, so may be a little more frail, but if you treat all your lenses like you paid $1000 for them, then that won't matter either.

The main drawback is the non-USM, for quietness, speed and full time manual focus, the 28-135 will shine. Additionally if your a lens toucher, accidental holding the focus ring won't screw up a USM lens.

P.S. I have the 28-135 so I'm slightly biased, but it was my first USM, once using it I replaced all my non-USM lenses immediately. Once you experience USM the other seem like they are filled with molasses.


----------



## DB83

Can you explain the full time manual focus on USM lenses?
I would like to eventually have a full frame camera like the 5d mark II (or at least a future version of it) and I would keep the 7d and just use each camera where it would excel over the other.  As for the EF vs. EF-S, yes, it would be nice to have a lens right now that would work on the future FF camera, but it's probably less of an issue only being a $400 dollar lens that is old.  I'm sure I will have better lenses before I get a FF camera, or at least be able to find a lens suitable for it.


----------



## ErectedGryphon

DB83 said:


> Can you explain the full time manual focus on USM lenses?
> I would like to eventually have a full frame camera like the 5d mark II (or at least a future version of it) and I would keep the 7d and just use each camera where it would excel over the other. As for the EF vs. EF-S, yes, it would be nice to have a lens right now that would work on the future FF camera, but it's probably less of an issue only being a $400 dollar lens that is old. I'm sure I will have better lenses before I get a FF camera, or at least be able to find a lens suitable for it.


 

Full time Manual focus, will let you use the manual focus ring to change your focus, even with the lens set in auto focus mode. Non-USM would strip the focus gears if you try this.

The EF-S will not work on a 5D mark 1 or 2, the lens body usually goes deeper in the cavity, causing the mirror to strike it and breaking the camera. In addition the care in producing the glass on the EF-S is not as stringent as the EF, the smaller sensor only uses the center of the lens, full frames use more of the glass so they have to be more diligent on the glass production. Thats one reason for the increased prices.


----------



## ReoFlex

I have the new Canon 7D DSLR. I also have both the new efs 18-135mm lens as well as the older ef 28-135mm lens. Today I was testing both and was surprised to find that the newer 18-135mm lens actually focused faster than the older 28-135mm despite the latter having the USM motor. However, the new AF system on the 7D is beautiful. I sold my 40D to get this new camera and am truly happy I did if for nothing other than how fast the new AF system is and how quickly and tightly it locks onto birds in flight. Tomorrow I'll test the two lenses more thoroughly as to focus times and photo quality. Though in my early testing, the older lens did seem to be just a bit sharper. I'll test more thoroughly tomorrow and get back to the forum with my results. I'm an advanced enthusiast in terms of my ability. Hopefully, I'll help you to make a better choice when considering which lens to purchase with this fine new camera.:thumbup:


----------



## DB83

I'm looking forward to your findings.


----------



## Big Mike

> The EF-S will not work on a 5D mark 1 or 2, the lens body usually goes deeper in the cavity, causing the mirror to strike it and breaking the camera. *In addition the care in producing the glass on the EF-S is not as stringent as the EF*, the smaller sensor only uses the center of the lens, full frames use more of the glass so they have to be more diligent on the glass production. Thats one reason for the increased prices.


I don't agree with that.  The EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 10-22mm lenses are very good.  Many people say that they are on par with L zoom lenses, in terms of image quality.


----------



## ReoFlex

Okay, here are the results of my own testing of the two lenses on my new Canon 7D. I took a series of photos of various objects in my own back yard. It was about 4pm today, sunny skies, shaded yard. I took about 10 shots of tree bark, statuary, yard art objects, angel statues, etc. As for the focusing, the difference between the two lenses, despite the USM motor on the 28-135mm lens was imperceptible. The 28-135mm IS USM was quieter, however, this didn't seem to me to be an issue. A little quieter, so what? As to picture quality, I was surprised by this. The results were very different from what I had noticed first time I checked out the images. The NEW 18-135mm IS lens blew away the older 28-135 IS USM. The photos were noticeably sharper with leaves, wood, statuary being markedly clearer. The colors, YES, the colors, were far more saturated on the new lens. The difference is vast. The colors from the older 28-135mm IS USM lens were muddy and indistinct by comparison. The colors on the images taken with the new 18-135mm IS lens popped and this even added to the apparent sharpness and distinctness of the objects in the photos. There truly is no real comparison. The Newer Lens is the way to go. It's no contest at all. I compared the images side by side in Adobe Lightroom 2. Looking at the differences... Well, it's time to retire the older 28-135mm lens. My suggestion. Go ahead and purchase the 7D in kit form with the 28-135mm IS USM lens for the extra $200.00. Immediately upon opening the box, take out the lens and put it up for sale on ebay as new, you'll get about $325.00 - $425.00 for it. Put the extra money you make towards the new 18-135mm IS lens and smile! Here's how I tested both lenses: AV setting at f/11, AWB, as jpg images at highest quality settings, all shots taken on a manfrotto tripod. I only wish I was able to post the differences for you to see. What amazed me even more than the sharpness difference was the remarkable difference in color saturation and clarity! Now how this lens will stack up against the new 15-85mm IS USM, I can not say. Will be interesting though. Hope this helps you.:thumbup:


----------



## DB83

Hmm.  I'll do some searching to see if others have the same findings.  Not to discredit your work, I just like multiple opinions.  As for buying, I think I'd just save myself the hassle and get the kit with the 18-135 for 2000.  The 28-135 kit is 1900, and if I sell the lens even for 400, I'd have to spend 500 for the 18-135 anyways so it'll end up being the same.


----------



## DB83

On another note, I'm not even sure if I'd be interested in the 15-85.  By the time I'm ready to spend that much on a lens, I may as well get the 24-105L.


----------



## ReoFlex

I just today tested both lenses once again. The results were identical. I put the  photos up side by side in Lightroom 2 for my wife to observe. Her opinion matched my own. The difference between the two lenses is astonishing! The older 28-135mm IS USM lens should not even be offered with the new 7D. It is no match for it at all. As I mentioned, it's time to retire that 28-135mm IS USM moldy-oldie. Truly, Canon should NOT be offering this lens as a kit option. Not so for the fine new 18-135mm IS. I would like to see the pros conduct this test as a review so that the word gets out and saves a lot of users some money and frustration. Again, the New lens yields better sharpness and far better color. The difference is dramatic. Canon did well with this new lens, but is likely dumping stock by pairing the 7D with the older 28-135mm IS USM.   :thumbup:


----------



## DB83

What about on the edges?  I've read in other places that the 18-135 has problems on the edges.  compare for me plz.


----------



## ErectedGryphon

Big Mike said:


> The EF-S will not work on a 5D mark 1 or 2, the lens body usually goes deeper in the cavity, causing the mirror to strike it and breaking the camera. *In addition the care in producing the glass on the EF-S is not as stringent as the EF*, the smaller sensor only uses the center of the lens, full frames use more of the glass so they have to be more diligent on the glass production. Thats one reason for the increased prices.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that. The EF-S 17-55mm and the EF-S 10-22mm lenses are very good. Many people say that they are on par with L zoom lenses, in terms of image quality.
Click to expand...

 

Point, I never said they didn't make great images, what I meant was that the outer edges of the glass isn't used on a crop sensor camera. Therefore manufacturing isn't as stringent, which in no way effects the image quality, and it actually brings down the price of the lens.

Another feature of USM vs. most (not all) Non-USM, that we overlooked, is the internal focus. The front lens of USM lenses do not spin while focusing. With most Non-USM lenses, the front lens spins, which will require you to hold your Polarizing and Gradient filters during focus, that if not careful can cause resistance an wear out the focusing motor or strip gears.

*EDIT*: According to the specification on the Canon sight this particular lens has internal focusing, so not really an issue


----------



## DB83

What lens are you talking about?


----------



## chip

I would noy buy a Canon EF 28-135 IS USM on a crop frame Canon 7D. It is not wide enough 28x1.6=45mm - a normal lens. You will not like it and wish you could zoom out more.

The Canon EF-S 18-135 IS is better for a 7D, but wait, the new EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 is the best stay on lens for a crop frame Canon.


----------



## usayit

ErectedGryphon said:


> If we were talking Full Frame Sensor, I would say 72mm Diameter (28-135) is better than 67mm (18-135), but were talking EF-S so it may not be that big of a difference, since all the glass wont be used anyway.
> ...
> Point, I never said they didn't make great images, what I meant was that the outer edges of the glass isn't used on a crop sensor camera.



I do believe the EF-S lenses have a smaller image circle...   so I don't believe there is any correlation between either statement and overall image quality.  I don't think filter diameter and element sizes are a correlation in any format/brand/mount.  I think Mike was pointing that out.  There are external and internal focusing designs in the canon line equipped with both USM and non-USM.

You can talk terminology and specs all day long... in terms of image quality the only decisions to made are done looking over samples.


----------



## DB83

chip said:


> I would noy buy a Canon EF 28-135 IS USM on a crop frame Canon 7D. It is not wide enough 28x1.6=45mm - a normal lens. You will not like it and wish you could zoom out more.
> 
> The Canon EF-S 18-135 IS is better for a 7D, but wait, the new EF-S 15-85mm f3.5-5.6 is the best stay on lens for a crop frame Canon.



The 15-85 is a 800 dollar lens which from what I've read isn't quite worth the money.  If I'm going to spend that much on a lens, I may as well either get the 17-55 f/2.8L IS USM or the 24-105L.  Still would lean towards the 24-105L though since I'm looking for more of a walk around lens.  The telephoto lenses come later.


----------



## ReoFlex

I posted 4 comparison photos on a Flickr site that I set up. I am NO fan of Flickr. The site is confusing as hell to get going on. Smugmug is far and away a better site! But go here and hopefully you'll find the pictures of the test that I posted. There should be 4 double pics with the New lens on the left and the old lens on the right. You'll be amazed. Be sure to click on the photos and use the magnifier button above the pic in order to enlarge it for a better look.
Hopefully, this will get you there:
Flickr: reoneill1's Photostream


----------



## ReoFlex

The 28-135mm IS USM is a lackluster lens at best. It should be retired. If you're using it, you're not getting the photo quality you will get with any number of other newer Canon lenses, especially the newest ones. This lens is also NOT one you will use on a full frame camera if you purchase one. It is simply NOT good enough. You'll want better lenses for those. Same is true with a 7D. Here's a tip. Purchase what you need now, NOW. In the future purchase what you'll need then, THEN. Simple. Don't buy a lens today thinking about tomorrow. Things are changing so fast that you can never be sure that what you get today will even be applicable tomorrow anyway. Live and photograph for today. Address your present needs. Hell, you may not even be alive tomorrow. =)


----------



## usayit

ReoFlex said:


> The 28-135mm IS USM is a lackluster lens at best.



I think we heard you the first and second time.  :er:  

I am usually skeptical of anyone raving about any product.
I am usually skeptical of anyone ranting about any product.

I've shot with the 28-135mm IS and it wasn't "lackluster" as bad as you make it out to be.  Please post your comparisons so the OP can see for themselves.


----------



## DB83

It's ok.  I won't make my decision based on any one person's opinions.


----------



## Derrel

I went to Canon's official USA web site, to look at the MTF graphs for the old 28-135 and the new 18-135 zoom....but they have jiggered with the results on the new lens. I find this disingenuous on Canon's part, at best. I've been considering adding a 7D to my kit since I first heard about it, but you know,
the sensor's ultra-dense high-megapixel count with exceedingly small pixels means that lenses are going to have to be able to deliver truly *EXCELLENT* performance, or the sensor's high MP count will be absolutely wasted.

The second issue is that with the high MP count of the 7D, diffraction will probably set in at apertures LARGER than f/5.6. At 12 MP on 1.5x, diffraction starts cutting sharpness at f/5.6; apertures like f/8,using the 24-105L are looking not very good to me, based on this Canon 5D and 7D owner's side-by-side comparisons.

Last night I spent like an hour at Fred Miranda, trying to find out the honest truth about the 7D from actual owners. I have also been searching the web for full-sized images, and honestly, I think the 7D's performance is craptastic with anything less than Canon's very-best lenses, and then ONLY at larger apertures like f/4 to f/5.6. With zoom lenses in the consumer price, the wide-open apertures are not going to be optically good enough,and by the time the cheaper lenses are stopped down to f/5.6, the tiny pixel size will already be causing diffraction and a loss of image quality.

Here is the best comparison I found of a head-to-head lens for lens shot
showing the 7D's issues that concern me the most"
Image Quality: 7D vs 5D original ? - FM Forums
Excellent example of the 5D being sharper than the 7D on the same scene,both shots made using the 24-105L at f/8

Landcape with 24-105L at f/8   http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2531/3985223796_6e954783d7_o.jpg
ISO 1600 side by side   http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3530/3984515563_76df58c0f1_o.jpg


----------



## usayit

Kinda sounds like a issue between IQ of camera bodies not IQ between two lenses as being currently discussed.


----------



## Derrel

Usayit wrote, "Kinda sounds like a issue between IQ of camera bodies not IQ between two lenses as being currently discussed."

No, go to Canon's web site and look at the truncated MTF graphs for the 18-135,and then look at the full MTF graphs for the 28-135 lens, and then maybe you'll understand that all Canon is showing at the MTF figures for the VERY CENTER of the new lens, while the older lens has a full MTF graph which shows itsgood center performance as well as its lousy performance out to the edges. What is Canon hiding? Looks to me like potentially atrociously poor edge performance in the newer 18-135 lens. Look at the MTF info they provide on the new lens...center figures only....hmmm. Why?

That was my first point about the 18-135 vs 28-135 debate.

The second point I made is about how demanding the 7D is,and how its performance on the 24-105L is not very good at f/8, and about the way the 7D's ultra-dense sensor will show deleterious diffraction effects at smaller apertures. The OP asked about two specific zoom lenses for use with a specific body, the 7D,and my comments ought to be construed to mean, " both the 18-135 and 28-135 are consumer-level zoom lenses,and will  produce craptastic images on the 7D at small aperture like f/8, and also at wider apertures because said lenses are not very good wide open."

My third point was that consumer-grade zoom lenses are *unlikely* to look good on the camera in question, which is the 7D. And both the 18-135 and 28-135 must be considered "consumer grade" lenses. Looking at the poster above's three sample scenes on Flickr, it seems like the older 28-135 he owns has a serious problem with flare or veiling glare whenever shot toward even moderately strong light, but that the degree of resolution in both the 18-135 and 28-135 are reasonably close; it's hard to tell in such small samples, but one thing we need to keep in mind is that the newest cameras can be programmed by their manufacturer's to read the information from each,specific lens, and in the case of Nikon's higher-end cameras, and  having the camera be aware of *specific* lens characteristics, the camera itself can remove chromatic aberration the lens has when it converts the data from the sensor. Since the 7D is Canon's first color-aware light metering camera, and it has Canon's very latest Digic image processor, I expect that it will be able to utilize every last bit of lens ability from the very newest lenses,and probably many older lenses.

I do not suspect the poster's motives or methodology, but I wonder if the camera itself might be optimizing the output of the 18-135 thru sophisticated image processing in its new Digic image processing engine,and Lightroom is merely accurately opening the file up almost optimized perfectly. What I see is lower contrast from the 28-135, and more veiling; I could boost the contrast up with a slight tweak if I wanted, so they two would look identical contrast-wise. It's hard to tell from such small samples as those above, but how the camera's own JPEG engine and other software interprets the sensor data has become pretty sophisticated these days.

When a camera "knows" the RGB components of the light, like the 7D does, and when the camera is fully aware of every lens's particular characteristics, the images ought to look really good. I'm not doubting the poster above and his side-by-side backyard test results: it is clear that *his* 28-135 has a flare/veiling problem when even weak backlighting is present against a predominantly dark field, like the ivy on his fence. Maybe the 28-135's rear element coatings are slightly hazy, or maybe the newer lens really has a much more flare/veiling-resistant optical design.

I'm still considering a 7D as a good value at $1600; I just want to see how it performs,and I've been searching all over for good FULL-sized samples,and what I am seeing is that this camera looks,well, like it demands lenses that have high MTF scores,and I don't considered the 28-135 to look good on that parameter, and Canon is hiding the 18-135's full-field potential on its web site. Still 28x 1.6 = 44.8 FOV, and I'm not too down with that. 18>28.8:thumbup:


----------



## ReoFlex

Derrel: Sounds like you're a more advanced user than I. Interesting what you said about the lenses. Maybe so. Perhaps my test was flawed as well, or just specific to MY 28-135 lens? Dunno for sure. 
Usayit: I posted a link for you to see for yourself. Go check it out. Also, I've owned two 28-135 lenses, and borrowed my son-in-laws for this particular test. ALL of them have been "lackluster." IMHO. Three "flukes" maybe??? And talk about a "lackluster" macro lens? The 28-135mm IS USM (Macro) is the very definition of  "lackluster" Give it a try and see for yourself. =)


----------



## ReoFlex

Derrel: I like what you said about the color aware light metering: "Since the 7D is Canon's first color-aware light metering camera, and it has Canon's very latest Digic image processor, I expect that it will be able to utilize every last bit of lens ability from the very newest lenses,and probably many older lenses." - Then perhaps this is why the colors were so very superior in the new lens images??? This really surprised me. Could the lens be tweaked to capitalize on this new camera ability? Or vice-versa? The images I put up were scaled down by Flickr, however, if you click on the image itself when it opens in a new window you can click on the little magnifier icon above the picture and it opens it in a larger rendition. Was only the second time I've posted images to Flickr, and am not sure of the best way to do it. Your stuff is good, I like what you have to say, your experience shows. Very helpful

USAYit: Sorry bud, I do tend often to drive a point I'm trying to make home a little "hard." Best I think to leave the final verdict to the observer perhaps?


----------



## Derrel

ReoFlex asked, "Could the lens be tweaked to capitalize on this new camera ability? Or vice-versa?" The answer is YES,YES,YES. Panasonic is doing simply amazing things with lenses in their high-end compacts, eliminating optical aberrations that exist within the lens, but which are processed OUT when the image data from the lens is handled by the image processor in the camera. DXO software can do the same thing in post on your computer with specific lenses in its database (dozens of lenses). Nikon's newer, better cameras can remove chromatic aberration from the CPU-equipped AF Nikkor lenses, based on the EXIF information and the lens ID information transferred electronically. Nikon Capture software can remove residual CA from phots, allowing lenses like the 10.5mm fisheye to retail for $699, not $3,500 with ALL the CA isssue addressed in the lens itself. Leica's new lenses also have a coding system that tells the M8 and M9 which specific lens is on the camera,for similar reasons, so the sensor info can be processed as good as is possible based on boatloads of data that is lens-model specific.

Every lens has its own,specific design and every lens of that type performs *almost* identically, unless an element is decentered, or the coatings get cleaning marks, or the lens is dirty. If you say three different examples of one zoom model performed badly,I believe it. Nikons 35-135mm f/3.5~4.5 AiS was one of the world's worst zoom lenses--just a horrific design. Making a wide to short tele zoom is fairly tricky--it crosses boundaries of wide-normal-tele. Kinda like a Swiss army knife-jack of all,master of none...

Your test showed me the flare and veiling glare performance clearly. Cameras are computers, and lenses feed data to processors and to software.


----------



## usayit

ReoFlex said:


> Usayit: I posted a link for you to see for yourself. Go check it out. Also, I've owned two 28-135 lenses, and borrowed my son-in-laws for this particular test. ALL of them have been "lackluster." IMHO. Three "flukes" maybe??? And talk about a "lackluster" macro lens? The 28-135mm IS USM (Macro) is the very definition of  "lackluster" Give it a try and see for yourself. =)



Thank you for posting.... Your posts were basically the words of a fanatic leading a blind man.  

Something still seems off here.  My cousin's 28-135 IS both his original 20D and later the 5D MII produces results quite different from yours.  He later traded the lens in for a 24-70L and we did see a noticeable difference as you would expect moving to higher end glass but it was no where close to the drastic difference of your test.   

* First thing that is obvious to me is the WB.  WB of the 18 is much warmer than the 28.  
* Second thing that has me confused are the histograms.  The 28-135's photo has everything group towards the left while the 18-135 is even across the entire dynamic range.  
* Third, I could not help notice the slight difference in composition.  I also noticed the different lighting from the fence at the back.  Almost looks like photos taken in different lighting conditions/different times (handheld).  One in bright sunlight and the other in overcast/diffused.  This would also explain the difference in WB.
* Finally thing I noticed was the details captured and this is what I found most interesting.  I am limited because of the posted resolutions but its still visible.  If you ignore the differences in exposure and WB, I noticed the details capture are almost identical.  I matched both WB and exposure as closely as possible.   Nothing else was done.  For this experiment I am only interested in the details in the wood grain at the center of the photos.  I noticed that the details captured are fairly close.  Attached is a screen capture of my observation.  Take a guess as which one is the 18-135 and the 28-135?

I am glad you are happy with your purchase.  I agree the best choice is the 18-135 for the improved IS technology and the wider 18mm focal length.  I just don't agree that the 28-135mm is "that" bad.  It is a well known lens and liked for about a decade.


----------



## usayit

Derrel said:


> to mean, " both the 18-135 and 28-135 are consumer-level zoom lenses,and will  produce craptastic images on the 7D at small aperture like f/8, and also at wider apertures because said lenses are not very good wide open."



Reoflex for example is perfectly happy with the 18-135mm on his 7D.  I doubt I would call his photos "craptastic".  If you take the 24-105L in the same conditions on one camera then another.  If the ending result is difference, then the problem really seems to be the camera...

You and I approach photography from very different perspectives.  I don't even like examining photos on the stupid screen..  When evaluating something, I still defer my final thoughts until I see a print.  (BIG Differences there)  I generally read the technical details with a grain of salt and focus on a single question "Does it satisfy?"


----------



## usayit

Derrel said:


> No, go to Canon's web site and look at the truncated MTF graphs for the 18-135,and then look at the full MTF graphs for the 28-135 lens, and then maybe you'll understand that all Canon is showing at the MTF figures for the VERY CENTER of the new lens, while the older lens has a full MTF graph which shows itsgood center performance as well as its lousy performance out to the edges. What is Canon hiding? Looks to me like potentially atrociously poor edge performance in the newer 18-135 lens. Look at the MTF info they provide on the new lens...center figures only....hmmm. Why?



You reading too much into them... the reason why the 18-135 MTFs are truncated at the horizontal axis is the cropped sensor size.  Horizontal is Xmm from the center of the image circle which is smaller on an EF-S lens.


----------



## chip

The EF 28-135 is not a bad lens. It is just not a good fit for a 1.6x crop frame camera. The wide end is too narrow to be a stay on lens. It would be good for a film or full frame camera. For a 1.6x crop frame camera the EF-S 15-85mm is a far better choice for a general purpose stay on lens.


----------



## ReoFlex

USAyit: I took the photos at roughly the same time. There might have been a 10 minute difference at best. I took the 18-135 shots first, after taking about 10 pictures, I then put on the 28-135 lens and took the same photos. All mounted to a Manfrotto tripod. Remember, I had to manually adjust the 18-135 to approximate the 28-135 lens setting at 28, so the 18-135 may have actually been set somewhere between 26-30mm. Several photos were taken at 50mm & 80mm, so that I was tilting the lens upward to see the settings clearly, then repositioning it on the subject. Hence, the slightly different compositions. Understand? So of course, the lighting was a little different, since the sun was low, about 4:30 PM and moving behind several tall trees. So that within 10 minutes as it's shining through dense leaves, the light pattern on the fence was changing. I made the test as fairly and honestly as I could. My intention was only to discover the best lens for the 7D for my purposes. I have no vested interest in either lens. Had the 28-135 been the better lens in the test, I would have just as certainly posted those results and sang it's praises, while bad-rapping the 18-135. Though I've never been a big fan of 28-135, never believing it to be all that much. I know there are many who like it, yet to me, it's always seemed, "lackluster." Just my opinion. But the test results for MY particular camera, at those particular settings, the results are quite clear. My goal in posting the results on a forum are only to be an aid to those deciding which lens to buy for their 7D. Only to be helpful. And... There it is.


----------



## jeff5897

you can review the original size images photo by EF 28-135mm lens here 

Flickr Search Engine : Flickr original size search engine.


----------

