Canon 28-135mm for general video use? at DVinfo.net

David Koo · February 13th, 2009, 11:42 AM

I know that the Canon 28-135mm Zoom does not get the same respect as the Canon 24-105 Zoom. But the price difference it huge! The former can be had refurbished for about $280 while the later costs around $1000. Here are my questions: 1) for general VIDEO use, will there be much of a picture quality difference between these two lenses 2) Is the IS on the 28-135 significantly inferior to the 24-105 lens (and is it much noisier), 3) for VIDEO use, what are the benefit of using the 24-105 over the cheaper 28-135?

Thanks in advance...

Josh Brusin · February 13th, 2009, 12:34 PM

Buy the best lens you can afford. What you see is mostly the lens... For knock-around video the non-L should be fine IS is nice. But That f4 (even though it's an F4) is tack-sharp across the zoom range and has very nice color/contrast (my opinion). Might mention that I've been a fast-lens junkie with my mini-35 for a Loooong time. So to compliment an F4 is a big step for me.

All that said, I can't afford it. I'm shooting Leitz and Nikkor for video and not getting too jacked on coffee instead of getting the IS lenses. That or using the flippin tripod.

Mark Hahn · February 13th, 2009, 02:17 PM

I tried the 28-135 with video and it was useless. The zoom ring was sticky, which I never really noticed with stills, but zooming in video has obvious jerks.

Also, it is a varifocal lens, so even if you disable the electronics, it switches the shutter when zooming. So you are forced to use f5.6 for all zoom shots which sucks if you want to edit it next to a f3.5 shot.

Oh, when I discovered this I sent it to Irvine and had it refurbished, which changed nothing, and wasted my $113.

Dylan Couper · February 13th, 2009, 03:09 PM

Also, even though the 4mm difference in the wide end doesn't look like much, that's huge for any indoor or tight scenes.

Dylan Couper · February 16th, 2009, 06:47 PM

A question on the 24-105 L IS, This is not a parfocal lens, correct? (I know the 28-135 isn't).

Thanks

Mark Hahn · February 20th, 2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

A question on the 24-105 L IS, This is not a parfocal lens, correct? (I know the 28-135 isn't).

Thanks

The 24-105 L IS is parfocal. If its name has only one f-stop number then it is parfocal.

I just sold my 28-135 and bought a 24-105. I could kick myself for not getting the kit but I thought the 28-135 would be good enough. I only wasted $100 though. (Well $213 counting the wasted 28-135 refurb).

Dylan Couper · February 23rd, 2009, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Hahn

The 24-105 L IS is parfocal. If its name has only one f-stop number then it is parfocal.

Thanks! I had read through a list of Canon parfocal lenses and didn't see it listed, so assumed it wasn't.

February 13th, 2009, 11:42 AM	#1
David Koo Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 51	Canon 28-135mm for general video use? I know that the Canon 28-135mm Zoom does not get the same respect as the Canon 24-105 Zoom. But the price difference it huge! The former can be had refurbished for about $280 while the later costs around $1000. Here are my questions: 1) for general VIDEO use, will there be much of a picture quality difference between these two lenses 2) Is the IS on the 28-135 significantly inferior to the 24-105 lens (and is it much noisier), 3) for VIDEO use, what are the benefit of using the 24-105 over the cheaper 28-135? Thanks in advance...

February 13th, 2009, 03:09 PM	#4
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	Also, even though the 4mm difference in the wide end doesn't look like much, that's huge for any indoor or tight scenes. __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

February 16th, 2009, 06:47 PM	#5
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	A question on the 24-105 L IS, This is not a parfocal lens, correct? (I know the 28-135 isn't). Thanks __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

February 13th, 2009, 12:34 PM	#2
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	Buy the best lens you can afford. What you see is mostly the lens... For knock-around video the non-L should be fine IS is nice. But That f4 (even though it's an F4) is tack-sharp across the zoom range and has very nice color/contrast (my opinion). Might mention that I've been a fast-lens junkie with my mini-35 for a Loooong time. So to compliment an F4 is a big step for me. All that said, I can't afford it. I'm shooting Leitz and Nikkor for video and not getting too jacked on coffee instead of getting the IS lenses. That or using the flippin tripod.

February 13th, 2009, 02:17 PM	#3
Mark Hahn Major Player Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Laguna Niguel, CA Posts: 277	I tried the 28-135 with video and it was useless. The zoom ring was sticky, which I never really noticed with stills, but zooming in video has obvious jerks. Also, it is a varifocal lens, so even if you disable the electronics, it switches the shutter when zooming. So you are forced to use f5.6 for all zoom shots which sucks if you want to edit it next to a f3.5 shot. Oh, when I discovered this I sent it to Irvine and had it refurbished, which changed nothing, and wasted my $113.