Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1450 posts, RR: 0 Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week ago) and read 7784 times:
I got this lens at the end of 2009 along with my current camera (50D) and my first telephoto zoom, and it's served me pretty well. However I notice a strong tendency toward chromatic fringing, and a pretty shallow depth of field (for airplanes, most of the nose and fuselage will be in focus, but I will start to lose it around the tail.) Usually I have been shooting around f7.1 to f8.0 in manual exposure for that. Recently I tried changing that to f10 or f11 and it seems to help, though at the expense of a bit more grain as I had to increase the ISO to compensate. Anyway, I guess I'm asking if any of you all have used this lens for aviation photography, and if so, what settings work best for you. Also, if I was looking to "upgrade" from this lens in some way, is there anything out there that you find is much better?
There are no 'best' settings as it depends on the light on the day and what you're trying to acheive. However, if you're using it between f/8-10 with a suitable ISO / shutter speed for the light and what you're trying achieve, it sounds like you've reached the limit of what the lens is capable of giving you.
Quoting Newark727 (Thread starter): Also, if I was looking to "upgrade" from this lens in some way, is there anything out there that you find is much better?
Canon 24-105 F/4 L. CA is minimal and it's sharp and fast, but at a cost.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 11474 posts, RR: 25
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7770 times:
Quoting Newark727 (Thread starter): and a pretty shallow depth of field (for airplanes, most of the nose and fuselage will be in focus, but I will start to lose it around the tail.)
Depth of field shouldn't be dependent on the lens. How far are you from the aircraft in question? At distances of a couple hundred feet, and apertures of F7 or F8, DOF shouldn't be too much of an issue. And even with a different lens, you should still come out with about the same DOF.
For a 50D, shooting a subject from 150 feet away at 100mm at F8, your DOF is 400 feet. Once the subject reaches 216 feet away, your DOF is infinite.
Are you sure it's not the lens getting soft toward the edges? When I used the 70-300 IS USM, at longer focal lengths, the noses and tails were often pretty soft, since they were toward the edges of the frame.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 812 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7757 times:
The 28-135 is a pretty old design and wide to telephoto is the most difficult lens to design - basically its an assembly of compromises!
The more recent 24-105 does a much better job of this, but doesn't quite have the reach.
If the telephoto end of things is of most interest, then a 70-200 would offer much better image quality - I'd suggest the 'old' non IS 70-200 which can be had 2nd hand at a good price. The IS on the 28-135 isn't up to much - I don't think you'd miss it.
If wide angle is more important then the 24-105 is a good purchase.