Talk:Canon EF 28–135mm lens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Macro photography[edit]

This lens is not a dedicated "macro" lens.

Canon boasts "macro-like capability" on some lenses (this one of the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS lens), but they are no capable of reproduction nearing 1:1, or even 1:2 (more like 1:4). That they can accept macro lenses is irrelevant, or all lenses are "macro".

Besides, Template:Infobox photographic lenses says "1:10...1:2 for non-macro lenses, 1:2...1:1 for macro lenses, 1:1...5:1 for magnifier lenses", so by this standard, the "macroness" of even the f/2.5 Compact Macro is disputable. The Canon EF 28-135mm lens is a much clearer case. Don't mix up technical terms with advertieing propaganda. Rama 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ok, i added some text to help clarify...hopefully, with a link to the wiki macro page. I also added some re: the single aspherical element. Ken (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


The MSRP for this lens is listed in yen. I can't find Canon's price in USD; can anyone fix this? (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

this has apparently been fixed, but not by me. Ken (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

f/6.3 Sharpness on Wide -> f/11 Tele?[edit]

QC issues, perhaps? I find the results from the 28-135 IS perfectly usable wide open throughout its zoom range, with a nice sharpening stopping down to f/8. f/11 @ 135mm is not necessary for this lens. Or perhaps the manufacturing process improved as this lens aged? Tigerfishdaisy (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"useable" is hardly qualitative data. Most users find it "useable" until they purchase a better lens and then their definition of "useable" shifted up a few notches. It's a good lens but like all, not without some shortcomings. Ken (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Badly Written[edit]

I'm removing outdated and poorly written information. Specifically, the reference to Nikon's 18-200mm lens (and the lack of a Canon equivalent, which has since been released). I'm also adding a link to the official Canon website and changing the link to The Digital Picture.Kakomu (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)