Real world 28-135 IS VS 24-105 IS

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by louis_greene, Dec 27, 2005.

  1. I know what theory and MTF charts suggest, but what have you all had
    as real world results regarding the quality of the 28-135 IS lens VS
    the newer 24-105 IS lens? I'd really love to hear from people who
    have upgraded and if it was worth the $$$$$$$,$$$. (My search found
    a lot about people thinking or going to upgrade but mot much from
    people who did) I know the 5D is suppossed to be critical on lens
    quality, and that is likely where it's going to be used, but I also
    have the 10D so it will be used there too.
     
  2. Ran out of ink, so had to quit my home test, but so far the 28-135 is holding up rather well in comparison, given that I did a quick and dirty handheld " wide open" aperture test outside the camera store

    I test by printing 11x17 prints, since I don't shoot just for the computer screen

    I don't think I'll get the 24-105
     
  3. ky2

    ky2

    I still believe that the 24-105/4L lens is a very good bargain for $699.
     
  4. BTW, I shoot with a 20D, with attendant "crop", and fully agree with Yaron
     
  5. 699$?..is that a non IS version? B&H has the IS version for $1249.00! That would be quite a bargin if it were 699$, even grey market. I know it's not a direct comparison, but I am going to do some test shots with my 28-135 IS and my 70-200L f4 and see if there is a big difference there. I know there was when I left my 28-200 Sigma behind. Thanks for the links.
     
  6. he's saying it's overpriced at $1249. no prices like $699 to be found at the moment, I'm afraid.
     
  7. Real world? One is 4mm longer, the other is 30mm shorter.

    That can make more difference than MTF charts.
     
  8. Yes, 699$ would be nice and I probably wouldn't have posted this question if that's what it was. As for the 4mm/30mm - I have a prime at 24 and 70-200L glass so that doesn't really matter to me. What would matter would be getting a camera with increased resolution only not to take advantage of it because of lens choice. MTF charts are a good start, a real good one. However, just because a result is statistically significant, it doesn't mean you'll see it in a 20 x 30 print.
     
  9. It's an f/4 lens, L or no L. At $1299 I wouldn't buy it if it were the sharpest lens on earth. At $500-600 I just might. The 28-135 is FAR better bang for the buck. If I'm on a 1.6x crop camera, then 24vs28 is no big deal, I'd rather go to 17-18mm at the wide end.
     
  10. True. I agree with Yaron.

    The 28-135/IS and 24-105/IS are basically used for the same type of work. The 4L is built better. . is a bit sharper. . .is "a small bit" faster. .

    . . . .and costs 3X as much as the 28-135/IS.

    The other two Canon 4L lenses are in the $600-$700 range. The Canon 2.8L lenses are in the $1100-$1300 range. Granted the 24-105/IS has Image Stabilization. . . but there is simply no way that Image Stabilization justifies doubling the cost of the lens.

    The 24-105/4L is a new lens. All new equipment tends to be waaaay overpriced. I sense there is softness in the $1250 us price tag -> and I would expect the price to fall (slowly) over the next year.

    But the 24-105/4L-IS is a nice package. "L" quality. "IS". Clearly, a near ideal walkabout lens (except wide open full frame at 24mm). Perfect for digital types with excess cash on their hands. You know the types. . those that had a 10D with 17-40/4L, then flipped for a 20D with 17-85/IS, now flipping for a 5D with a 24-105/IS.

    Reichman loves this lens. http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/28-105.shtml. . . .But then again, Reichman seems to like most Canon equipment -such as the 70-300/DO-IS (he now uses it all the time) http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtm . . .despite some obvious warts. . .http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/70_300/index.htm

    For my money? OK I admit to being sorely tempted. On xmas eve I was staring with credit card in hand at my local overpriced pro shop ($1199!). . afterall. . I have fast primes for when "fast" is needed. But today. . . .the Fidelity Contra Fund sounds like a better deal.
     
  11. Jim: go for it, you'll love it!
     
  12. I already have the 28-135IS and have been happy with it on a 10D for almost two years. On occasion I missed the wide end, but just swithed out lenses. I plan going for the 5D since I really would like the full sensor (shoot northern lights and need fast and wide (24mm F1.4). On occasion I have printed large enough to see the 10D not hold up as well. I skipped the 20D because there seemed like little reason to justify the cost. I am hoping that the 5D will hold up and I can basically retire by 645 (which a rarely lug around anymore anyway). So, from the sounds of it I'll save the cash and check it out with my 28-135.
     
  13. Thinking about the "how much is IS worth?" question...
    The difference in cost between the non-IS and IS versions of the 70-200 f2.8 L lens seems to be about $570 (using current B&H prices). The two existing non-IS f4 L lenses cost about $590 (70-200) and $680 (17-40) respectively.
    A reasonable cost for the 24-105 f4 L IS could be determined by adding the cost of the existing f4 L lenses to the cost of adding IS to the 70-200 f2.8 L.
    • $590+$570=$1160 (using the 70-200 as the starting point)
    • $680+$570=$1250 (using the 17-40 as the starting point)
    I would seem reasonable to sell a non-IS version of the 24-105 lens for $699, but I can't see any reason to think that an IS version would sell for only a few dollars more than the other non-IS f4 L lenses.
    Keep saving... :)
    Dan
     
  14. Jon;

    My powers of resistance can be amazing :)
     

Share This Page