50D and the Canon 28-135

C

coldpenguin

Messages
2,196
Edit My Images
Yes
Is the search engine having a day off? Did a search for
50d 28 135
(and previously with a -) and it came up no items found (although I am sure I saw a post recently)

Anyway.
I was considering upgrading my 400D to a 50D. Primarily for the better ISO (as my 400D seems quite poor)
I was intending on pairing this with a 100-400L IS F/4 from Canon
Until I realised that the lens isn't F/4, it is 4-5.6

I currently have the 28-135 IS (3.5-5.6) and 70-300 IS (3.5-5.6) and apart from needing more light, I also wanted more reach, so thought that the 100-400 would be the right move, then possibly save for the 24-105L which I have seen people on here say is well suited to the 50d. The 24-105 currently being around £300 cheaper as well.

I know that the quality of the lens does not degrade by putting it on a better camera, however, I thought that the post (I was looking for) was saying something along the lines of 'the 50d will show up the weaknesses of the 28-135 now'

My interest is in getting some shots of the local wildlife (back garden birds and some local buzzards), however I know that I am going to be taking a lot of 'snaps' whilst on holiday this year, and that is going to be the 28-135 range (or 24-105 equiv). I do often yearn for more reach, either at 135 or 300mm.

Main Q
Is the quality of the 28-135 on the 50d going to disappoint me (it has done a bit on the 400d, but that may not be the lenses fault). Should I look at replacing this with the 24-105L, rather than supplementing the 70-300 with the 100-400L

(Intention is to get a couple of the better shots from hols produced at A4 for the living room wall at some point, possibly a joined panorama as well, if that helps decide on the IQ side of things)
 
I know everyone says upgrade your lenses before the body, but can you see yourself upgrading the body in the future at all?

I've jut went from a 50D and a 17-55 is to a 5DMKII with the 28-135.

I didn't try the 28-135 on the 50D, but having the micro adjustment on the 50D will at least show you if the lens is front/back focusing. A better sensor and a host of other features make me think your as well getting the body you want to begin with and then consider what lens you want after that.

The 70-300 is a great lens and i'd have thought a lens going up to 70mm in focal length would be a better idea, than going 35mm above it.....iyswim. :D
 
If I win the lottery, then I could see myself getting a 5DII or other non-crop camera. I was half considering the 5D at this point, however, at the moment, the cost of the lenses to just compensate for loosing the 1.6x is massive. 300mm at 1.6 is~420, cost of a lens at ~400 is around £1k, so I think the 5D upgrade is going to have to wait. In the future, if these things become more commodity, then I might upgrade, the 400D has done me 3 years almost, so who knows, next upgrade might be holographic :-) (those prices are canon ones, I am not a brand whore [my previous buys were without much advice, so I felt 'safer' in terms of compatability sticking to brand] and I find IS beneficial)

I think you are saying maybe the 24-70 range? At the moment, for walkabout I use the 28-135, and often use the 135 part, I fear that if I went 24-70, I might need to swap around a lot more than I currently do.


Ah, no I didn't see what you meant! I do have the 28-135 already, and was not thinking of getting rid of this until I had a replacement. I was wondering whether it is a good enough lens not to hold back the camera. I think from the move you have made, it would suggest that the 28-135 /should/ be a more than capable lens, and not provide any problems. And yes, the focusing was something that I was concerned of (in real life anyway, test shots seem OK), so the ability to tweak at this to compensate for anything stupid I might be doing (not that I remember jumping back 2 feet) is hopefully something to complement the lens (also, it may be worthwhile me sneding the pair of for calibration, something I never really considered with the 400d)
Thanks,
 
coldpenguin said:
I was considering upgrading my 400D to a 50D. Primarily for the better ISO (as my 400D seems quite poor)
I was intending on pairing this with a 100-400L IS F/4 from Canon
Until I realised that the lens isn't F/4, it is 4-5.6
Click to expand...

What's wrong with f4-5.6?

The 100-400 is an excellent all round long zoom lens. I have it with a 50d and it produces excellent results. If you are worried about adding a teleconvertor and losing autofocus, with the 40/50d just switch to live view and focus manually using the 5x/10x zoom.
 
Glad you understood me...i certainly didn't. :D

I done a lot of reading up on lenses. Comparing tests and reviews. I'm sure a LOT of people will say the 24-105 is a much better lens than the 28-135, but for the money and seeing picutres where 100% crops were shown, i was happy enough to afford the 5dII and consider an upgrade later on.

The 5DII is the pinacle of Canon bodies for me, as i simply wouldn't want a camera the size of the 1D's. Therefore i know from now on, i only spend money on the lenses.

If your 400D is 3 years old, then i'd suggest a new body. You don't want to fork out on a new expensive lens, for the body to break on you...

Check Yaamon's post on here... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=188563&page=27
 
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking but if its "is the 28-135 on a Canon 50D a disappointment?" then here's a pic taken with that set up and sharpened up a bit. What do you think?

IMG_1846.jpg


If you eventually got a 100-400L this is what is can do on a 50D

IMG_1687.jpg


does that help at all?
 
drb5 said:
If your 400D is 3 years old, then i'd suggest a new body. You don't want to fork out on a new expensive lens, for the body to break on you...

Check Yaamon's post on here... http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=188563&page=27
Click to expand...

I was going to get the body, just wasn't sure which lens.
Thanks for the link, that has shown me that there is no reason why this lens should hold back the capabilities of the body!

@Byker28i:
There is nothing wrong with f4-5.6, it is just when I was deciding which route to go, I thought it was f4, and thus at 400mm, would still be f4. When I found out it was not, was a little disappointed and decided to take another look at things. Taking photos of the garden birds, moving the lens to a longer length, will reduce the shutter speed, if I am stretching the camera in Av mode.
I think it comes down to the fact that at the moment, I am using Av, with the lenses as wide open as possible, in order to keep the ISO down. This is a habit I hope to break (and no longer need) once the camera can perform at higher ISOs.
 
Glenn Surtees said:
does that help at all?
Click to expand...

Yes, that helps a lot.

For the moment it would seem that a good 28-135 (i.e. keeping mine and checking it) would be good for me on the 50d. (there is the possibility that I am crap at taking photos with it though). I will get the 100-400 as I had decided on instead of considering the 24-105

Thanks all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top