This is the original, metal-mount version of the lens that has similar build quality to the 28-105. This lens has been my workhorse all these years, and is optically quite good. It is better at the 28mm end than a the 80mm end, but I never think of that while shooting. The only disadvantage it has is that it is slow at the long end: 5.6. I have made several 16x20s with this lens and haven't been disappointed.

This lens is not built as well as the 28-80, in the sense that the focusing ring is even chintzier, and there are no distance scales, but has never given me any problems, except one or two times when it acted up. I think it was due to humidity; couldn't pin-point it. Otherwise it has been mechanically perfect. Optically, as everyone has said, this lens is excellent at the short end (75-150) and average to good at 300. I have never tried making a 16x20 of any image shot at 300 with this lens mainly because a) Most animal shots that I have used this for are on slides, and b) haven't had the time. I have made several 8x10s (shot at 300 that is), and I am quite satisfied with them. I have made one 16x20 shot in the low end, around 100, and again, I had nothing to complain about. Yes, it could be sharper, but it is sharp enough that it's not an issue. The 75-100 range is so good that it's as good as any prime I have seen. You also have f/4 till 135 so it is faster than the 80 end of my 28-80.

I would certainly get the 75-300 IS (which is similar optically to this lens) today, if I had the additional money.

While my 28-80 has been sharp enough for me, images taken with the 50 definitely look sharper, even at 5x7 enlargements. I use the 50 whenever I need a 50, and whenever I can't afford to stop down to f/8 or f/11. I have never actually compared the 28-80 and 50 by doing side-by-side enlargements but I don't need to. The 50 is sharper and a no-brainer at 75 bucks.

Got this in 1998 in Tokyo. I ended up getting this over the 70-200 because the zoom is simply too big and heavy for most uses for me. Besides, it's only 2.8. Later on I plan to get the 85/1.8 also and this will cover that range very well, with much less weight. Optically, the 135 is supposed to be one of Canon' s best lenses so there is nothing to debate. It is very enjoyable to use. I have grown very fond of full-time-manual focusing; a notable feature of Canon USM lenses that I had not experiened till now. This lens is also heavier (though nothing ompared to the 70-200/2.8) than any of the previous three, so that is also a new experience for me.

I like the 20 FL a lot, and it has already become my standard wide angle (replacing the 28 end of my zoom). Optically quite excellent; nothing for me complain about.

Very sharp and great to use. I made one 16x20 color print and it is extremely sharp; it was even shot wide open! I really like the built-in sliding hood on this lens. The tripod collar ring loosens easily; that's my only complaint. Otherwise, my first white lens. Woo hoo! After I got my Bogen tripod 5 years ago, people would move repectfully over when they saw me setting up. Now, with a big white lens attached to it, I get comments like "Now that's a serious camera there". I intend to get a Tamron 1.4x to use with this lens soon. Oh, another complaint: it only focuses down to 8ft, a real bummer. The IS version focuses down to 4.5 ft, a concrete advantage in my book.

Finally, an IS lens! I intend this to be a replacement for my 28-80 that is being retired after 9 years of flawless service. This IS lens seems ideal in many respects, including a very close 0.5ft close focusing ability. The lens is at least as sharp as the 28-80, and the IS definitely works. I used it extensively in hot and humid conditions in Bali, and got many shots that would have been impossible without the IS. I got the hood for this lens in 2008, and have to say it improves color rendition and contrast noticably. Definitely get the hood!

I got this after I dropped the 50/1.8 onto a road from about 2 feet up; it broke into two nicely. I like the replacement better though; I find my sample to be quite sharp even at f/1.4, if you can get the focus and depth of field right. Combined with the ISO 800 or ISO 1600 of the 20D, you can take handheld shots in virtual darkness! By f/2 or 2.8 it is extremely sharp. My favorite portrait lens now. Check out my galleries for many examples of shots from this lens, especially the India 2006 gallery where I used it very extensively, and Chinmay's gallery.

My first non-Canon lens! I needed an ultra-wide for the 20D since the existing 20 became a 32mm lens with the 1.6 crop factor. I opted for the Sigma over the Canon 10-22 EFS because of two reasons: price , and the fact that EFS cannot be mounted on non-EFS mounts. I somehow liked the idea of being able to at least mount the sigma on a non-EFS mount, and cropping if necessary. There was also the Tamron and Tokina offerings; most tests seemed to show the Sigma as the best performer of the third parties. This lens is very sharp and contrasty; only issue is its propensity for a slight orange-yellow cast that is not there in the Canon lenses. But the cast is easily removed in Photoshop (a levels adjustment usually fixes it). Check out my galleries for many examples of shots from this lens, especially the India 2006 gallery where I used it very extensively, and Chinmay's gallery.

Another low-light legend in Canon's lineup. Although, I find that the 50/1.4 is a better focuser and performer wide open. The 35 is great though; absolutely great color rendition and contrast. I use it much more on my 20D since the 50 is too tight many times. Once I upgrade to the 5D II next year, it should become a good semi-wide on that camera. Most of the pictures on Akshay's blog are from this lens.

Other stuff

The potato-masher flash unit. Works well enough but I have not mastered flash yet.

I have the simple head also; I forget the number of that. That's what I use all the time. The 3047 is for the 4x5. The 'pod has served me very well; it's light enough and sturdy enough for almost every situation for me.

I have used this extensively with my 28-80 and have never been disappointed. In fact, I can't tell any quality loss compared to just the naked 80 (i.e, without the close-up lens) end of the zoom, so it's a cheap way of getting macro capability.

For use with the 135/2 L and the 300/4 L. With the 28-135IS, it gives really close-up ability.

All useful stuff.

A great projector for my 35mm slides.

Holds all the 35mm stuff inculding flash and 300/4. Or I have to remove the flash and 300 to fit the 4x5 and two lenses instead. Very comfortable to hike with; I did a seven-mile Narrows hike in the river at Zion NP with this thing.

Great for hiking; I combine it with the backpack above. Only downside is looking like a photo-geek.

4 x 5 Equipment

So Canon and Nikon live side by side in my bag! I have shot several sheets with both these lenses and have lots of printed enlargements.

Send me an email.