28-135 Is Vs 24-105l Is

[Zoinac]

I've got a 28-135 IS, great lens. But now that I've solidified my goals of pursuing photography as a profession, I'm interested in bettering my gear. Therefore, I'm looking to upgrade to L quality glass. So, my question is it worthwhile a transition for me to upgrade from my 28-135 IS to the 24-105L IS?

[downtrodden]

Hey sorry to intrude on your post, but your question may be relevant to me too-

Does the 28-135 seem a little fuzzy or soft at the long end to you? it seems so to me.

[Zoinac]

I've noticed that same problem, also with softness around the edges. That is what sparked my interest in the 24-105L lens. All the reviews of the 104 claim greatness. Most of the reviews I read on the 28-135 claim better than expected for the price.

My recent doubts on the L quality, came from looking at this test picture comparison.

24-104L VS 28-135 (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=355&Camera=9&LensComp=116)

Aside from the obvious softness of the 28-135 around the edges, it seemed to me (unless I don't know how to read these) that the 28-135 was almost sharper across the whole range.

That is what lead me to ask for a second opinion.

[downtrodden]

well i think the most qualified answer we'll get to our question is what i'm going to do soon- go to the store and take some pictures with the other lens attached, at different zoom ranges and different f-stops and take the card home and see if i am happier with the results. I haven't noticed softness around the edges on my copy of the 28-135 though. My only complaint is the long end- which makes it useless to me- so i wouldn't mind losing the extra range.

Oh well, we'll see.

[droopy1592]

The 28-105mm EF and 28-135 IS are both soft wide open and decently sharp everywhere else The 24-105L is sharp from 24-70mm at all apertures, starts to get soft longer than 70mm but still as sharp or sharper than the 28-135mm IS and it's a constant f/4

[timmciglobal]

I'd skip the 24-105 F4.

I had it for a while and in the end it's horrible out of focus highlights and "odd" range on crop killed it for me.

The 70-200 F4L IS on other hand, that's a winner.

Wide wise... I still hate the 17-55 as it's 1 grand for consumer crap build... 17-40 F4 can be found for about 550 used and is quite nice but "slower" and no IS.

As far as 28-135, it's a neat lens on the cheap and I still think it's a steal for what you get.

Tim

[nqjudo]

I agree with Tim. The 24-105 is a very nice lens but the 70-200 F/4 IS is arguably the best zoom that Canon makes. Paired with the 17-40 or the 17-55 depending on your needs, you have an extremely capable pair that covers a lot of ground. Having said that, how lenses are used are extremely personal so spending money on a 24-105 is not a mistake is if does what you need it to.

[droopy1592]

Hell, for the money i'd go for the 18-55mm IS (Must be IS!) and either the 70-200mm f/4L like these guys say or if you have less cash, get the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 or if you're not worried about resale get the 55-250mm IS when it comes out. Yes, it's built like the 18-55mm but it's early adopters say it's great.

[24Peter]

I'd skip the 24-105 F4.

I had it for a while and in the end it's horrible out of focus highlights...

Tim

Tim - did you have yours pre or post Canon fix on the lens. (I ask b/c what you describe sound symptomatic of the unfixed version of the lens.)
I've shot with the 24-105 L a few times (including renting one for a week). I found it to be a pretty good lens. Pretty sharp throughout the zoom range (though not as sharp a prime lens) with good contrast, very good IS performance and of course constant F4 apeture. (I also rented a 70-200 F4 IS and own a 70-200 F4 so know what those lenses are capbale of.)

I saw a comparison with the 28-135 IS recently on dpreview and the copy of the 24-105 F4 the guy was using must have been a really bad one b/c the 28-135 did indeed look sharper. I owned the 28-135 IS for a while too and was not impressed at all with that lens. I also don't like the 17-40 F4 L (also owned that for a couple of weeks.)

I do however agree a wider lens like the 17-55 IS or new 18-55IS paired with a good zoom might be a better way to go.

If you have a good copy of the 28-135, the 24-105 may not be much of a step up, unless you really need F4. If you do decide to go for it, I'd buy one from someplace that gives a good return policy in case you're not happy with the lens.

[timmciglobal]

The fix was a sharpness defect and I had mine repaired by canon, the almost DO kind of monet boken is what I'm talking about.

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/birdbath.jpg

That's the 24-105. Sharp (till 85mm or so) , great contrast but lacking OOF highlights/odd range.

Tim

[24Peter]

The fix was a sharpness defect and I had mine repaired by canon, the almost DO kind of monet boken is what I'm talking about.

http://pictures.divergentservices.com/birdbath.jpg

That's the 24-105. Sharp (till 85mm or so) , great contrast but lacking OOF highlights/odd range.

Tim

That's a nice shot (we've seen if before?) But... aren't they "Drinking Fountains"? :confused:

[timmciglobal]

It was a pun on that one is filled with water and more of a "bird bath" then a drinking fountain.

And I wasn't posting it for cheers or jeers was posting it to show the monet like boken which is the problem of the 24-105L

Tim

[michaelb]

I've got a 28-135 IS, great lens. But now that I've solidified my goals of pursuing photography as a profession, I'm interested in bettering my gear. Therefore, I'm looking to upgrade to L quality glass. So, my question is it worthwhile a transition for me to upgrade from my 28-135 IS to the 24-105L IS?

On a crop sensor the 17-55 f/2.8 IS or even the 18-55 IS are probably better lenses than the 24-105 IS, but if your looking for L glass and perhaps thinking about upgrading to FF in the near future then the 24-105 would be a good choice; for me, the 24-105 would be just about the perfect FL on a 5D.

[Zoinac]

I would consider my copy of the 28-135 a good copy. Of course, I'd say that about any lens in my collection. I decided to opt out of the 24-105 based on what you said here, and me confirming the review I posted above as being true.

I am interested in the 70-200, but, the age old question is, do I step up for the 2.8 version? It drawbacks are the weight and minimum focal length, but it's plus is.. well, 2.8. Which would lend itself well to a tele converter.

I agree with the odd bokeh coming from the 105 as well. Maybe, I'll just get a red paint pen and add a red strip to my 28-135... I'll believe me. :P

[cwphoto]

Wide wise... I still hate the 17-55 as it's 1 grand for consumer crap build.

LOL - are you still grinding that same old axe?! :D

[nqjudo]

There definitely is an axe to grind though. I bought the 17-55 2.8 and the 24-105 at the same time. With the hood for the 17-55 the price was exactly the same for both lenses. I sold the 24-105 because for me the focal range was far less useful than the 17-55 on a crop sensor body. I have no problems with the 17-55 on its own but I get cranky when I consider it next to the 24-105 and compare price tags. The 17-55 is not a bad lens by itself build wise but it does feel like a toy compared to the 24-105. I just can't figure Canon out on that one. OK... maybe I can but I don't want to admit it ;)

[timmciglobal]

CW: Sure, still irks me. 1100 for a lens built like the 17-85 IS...

Tim