24-105L vs 28-135 EF on a 5dii

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by david_henderson, Dec 4, 2014.

  1. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Virtually all our travel is dictated by what I feel the need to photograph, and now its my wife's turn . I've booked two winter workshops to Iceland and the Lofotens for us both- because that way she won't be worrying about driving in difficult conditions. Whilst we will both enjoy photographing in snow and ice, the biggest objective for her is to see and photograph the aurora borealis. She usually uses a compact, but here she'll be using a 5Dii that till recently was my prime camera, working from a tripod. The question is what lens to put on it.
    She's been loaned quite a bit of stuff by kind friends and one candidate is a relatively elderly but little used 28-135 EF IS. She'll also have access to a 17-40 L from my bag if she needs anything wider. Alternatively I can buy her a 24-105L and sell it on after the trips. Question is whether there will be a big difference in IQ. I know the 24-105L has better IS but of course all the Aurora work - which is where mainly she'll use the 5Dii - will be tripod -based so IS will be switched off anyway. I'm a bit torn, can you help please?
     
  2. The 24-105L is better than the 28-135, and 24mm is better (at least for my taste) as a wide angle (I've had both lenses). The 28-135 gets rather soft toward the long end, but the 24-105 is sharper.
    But I actually got rid of both and eventually got the 24-70 f/4L. I think this is a much better lens than the other ones. Sometimes I miss the reach (but I have other lenses to cover the range), but other than that, I am very happy with the 24-70 f/4L. It is much sharper, has lower distortion and vignetting at the wide end, and has a nice macro capability that comes handy when you need it.
     
  3. My daughter has the 28-135 and I've tried it too. It's old, but still respectable.
    The 24-105 is far superior at 24mm, and the 28-135 is equally superior at 135mm. ;)
    I do sometimes wish my 24-105 went up to 135, but I like the wider end at 24 too.
    As Hepburn said - "You can't have it all"
     
  4. Well , the 28-135 kit came with my first camera ,and I have to say its a good lens it's not the very best in dark but it's very
    sharp and is fast at focusing and sip and tripod is much better ,for that lens , We both the 24-105 lens and I find it
    Adorinan half price at 625 and no tax apor shipping ,and it's been by far the fastes ,most inedible fats sharp lens. An the
    IS has made such sharp shots ,when we least expected it , we did a late late night weeding sort of like I a sultry version
    of the fisrt night alone, as crept as it sounds it was great it handled very well. The lens was plenty wide enough and focus
    was wonderful , I also use the 50mm1.4 which is. Good and sharp but maybe not the full sky she would be after , have
    you considered the 10-22 ,it was one of my first puce chase e when doing beach weddings , I think your post was what do
    I chose out of what I have and with that I think loaning here the 24/105 is a. Worthy option , I have to say it shocked me
    whe we did some after editing in Lightroom , I wish her a great trip ,and envy her future adentures , we are not pros ,we
    simply fulfill what. We are skied to do and take what makes us happy within limits , soon we will be leaving the states and
    spending at least a season or two in Scotland and France and then England lastly so I sure hope we see the sights that
    make minds. More creative and those like your family ,encouraging to us whom are in transitional process.
     
  5. There's also the new 24-105 STM which looks like a good buy.
     
  6. I have the 24-105 L and find it a very useful lens, reasonably sharp and a handy size and weight. I used to have the 28-135 IS but found it disappointing especially at the long end. So from my experience I would go with the 24-105L option.
     
  7. Since she'll have access to a 17-40, the wide end isn't that big of a deal. Most of that kind of shooting isn't at particularly long focal lengths, so 105 vs. 135 isn't really an issue either.
    If your copy of the 28-135 is reasonable in output (because there is a LOT of variation), I can't see a compelling reason to go through the risk and expense for the 24-105. Yes, it's probably going to be a smidge sharper in absolute terms (though that largely depends on your copy of both lenses), but you are shooting aurora borealis! the subject isn't exactly crystal lattice structures - and it's done at night, with glowy reflections and such... ie the results, are likely going to be indistinguishable - in this application.
     
  8. I just received my 24-105 f4L on Wednesday. My 28-135 has served me well (especially on vacation as part of my 2 lens travel kit) for 7 years.
    I am giving the 28-135 to my son and I will be using the 24-105 for my primary walk around lens.
    People can debate all they want, but the bottom line is they both will make it possible for good photographer to create great images.
    The only things that the 24-105 has is superior build and filter size compatibility with the 17-40 (77mm).
    Ed
     
  9. I'm going to agree with JDM - we have both lenses, and the 28-135 is best classed as venerable, and respectable. The 24-105 is better at 24; the build is better, and the photos that come through it are crisper all the way to the edge. Don't get me wrong - there's lot of good photos in the 28-135; I just think there's more in the 24-105.
     
  10. The 28-135 is a good lens by consumer zoom standards. The 24-105 is professional quality. I had the former when I got my 20D (8 MP, APS-C sensor), and I definitely noticed an improvement when I upgraded to the latter. I'm sure that on a 5D II you'd also notice that the 24-105 is superior.
     
  11. I did the same progression as Howie W. Started with the 28-135 (years ago) then a 24-105L (bug upgrade) and now, the 24-70 f/4L. Like Howie, I'm extremely happy with the 24-70, it's compact, sharper than the 24-105 (at least the version I had) and I love the macro feature.
    I also, sometimes, miss the reach but have the 70-200 so there's no gap if I have both lenses with me.
    JD
     
  12. david_henderson

    david_henderson www.photography001.com

    Thank you for your responses, which I've discussed with my wife. I guess I think that Marcus Ian's standpoint is closest to the way I'm thinking and my wife would prefer that we didn't need to buy a lens, even though I'm sure we wouldn't lose much more than $100 on resale and I made it plain that I was happy to do that. So over the next few weeks I'll take some day and night test shots with the 28-135 and compare these with similar shots on my 24-105L. The real objective is to make sure that the 28-135 focuses well and takes decently sharp pictures on auto and manual focus. If its OK and stands up to the 24-105L reasonably ( I know it may be worse, the question is how much) she'll go with that. If not I'll buy a lens and resell it after our trips, and in that case I'll buy the 24-105L, since frankly the real issue is the time I need to spend sourcing a lens on eBay and more especially reselling it after, so I might as well get the better lens.
    As I say, thanks for your advice.
     
  13. A good compromise David, as long as you are happy with the tests. I didn't realize you already had a 24-105 in your kit. The way my wife and I work we tend to shoot different views at the same time, so we swap lenses back and forth when we're out together. The only lenses we have that cover similar views are the 24-105 and a 28-135 - we think of those as mid-range and it's nice to have one covering that range available.
     

Share This Page