*Sorry* Canon 28-105 or 28-135 IS

[cnhoff]

I have to apologize in the first place, because i know some will be

offended by this question, only i can tell, what lens i like or not...

 

The problem is, i can get a 28-105 II or a 28-135 IS tomorrow morning

for a very good price, but have no time to do some thorough testing. I

have handled both in a shop, i like both of them, which poses a

dilemma for me.

 

So, what are your opinions on the following:

 

1.) I have read in many reviews, that the 28-135 is the slightly

superior lens optically, is this true?!

 

2.) The 28-135 gets to f5.6 pretty soon i heard (around 85mm), what do

you think is worth more: the slightly lower f's on the 28-105 or IS on

the 28-135.

 

Thanks so much for your answers :)

[cnhoff]

Oh yeah and number 3:

 

3.) How does AF speed compare between those 2?

[PuppyDigs]

I own both and they're pretty close in terms of sharpnes (Both my zooms date from the

late 90s). In other words, only a hardened pixel peeper creeping the edges of the frame

might see a difference. Of course there's always sample variation so results will vary

somewhat. Both zooms have plenty of barrel distortion at the short end. The 28-135 is

much more prone to flare and is useless for sunset shots. The 28-135 3.5-5.6 is much

larger and

heavier and focuses slower, especically in low light at the long end. I would have stuck

with the smaller 28-105 3.5-4.5 (gave it to my wife) if IS wasn't so amazingly effective.

The tiny 28-105 is really a blessing for travel and hiking.

[mark cohran]

I don't own the 28-135, so I can't make a direct comparison, however, I do have the 28

-105 and like Puppy said, it's a great little lens for hiking and travel. Honestly, I've never

even been tempted by the 28-135 because the 28-105 is such a good little lens. In fact, I

used it for a Christmas party the other night and was very pleased with the resulting

photos. I loaned it to a friend that evening for a while to use on his 300D (instead of the

kit lens) and he was pleasantly surprised as well.

[WM]

Are you shooting film, full-frame sensor dSLR or 1.6x crop dSLR ?

 

I had the 28-135 on my EOS3 and I loved it, works well in everyway. If you had the extra cash, I'd go for the 28-135IS. The extra reach at the 135mm end also makes life really easy sometimes.

 

Now that I am shooting Canon 10d, the 28mm end is just terrible because it is not wide enough, so might have to go for the 24-70L, but too expensive for me at the moment.

 

wm

[marcin harla]

I own 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II but borrowed my friend's 28-135 IS to compare both in

normal shooting conditions.

As puppy face said said sharpness is about equal.

AF is a tad faster on 28-105. <p>If you can get 28-135 IS for a little more than 28-105 f/

3.5-4.5 then by all means get it. To me a huge difference in price just wasn't worth it. Oh,

and also 28-135 IS uses bigger and more expensive filters - something to keep in mind.

[PuppyDigs]

Of course wide enough is a question of taste and purpose. I like the EF 28-135 IS on my 10D even more than I do on film bodies. It behaves as a 50-200, an ideal range for me. It's even a little less flare prone. Of course I'm not a wide angle lover. On my film bodies I tend to use the mid to tele range the most. I have the 17-40 4L and it bores me to tears.

[danny_lee2]

the 28-135. definately.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/index.html">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/28zooms/index.html</a> </p>

<p> <a href="http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm">http://www.tawbaware.com/canon_lens_test.htm</a> </p>

<p> HTH.</p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[jimstrutz]

I had the 28-105 and sold it for the 28-135, and have never regretted it. The 28-105 does focus a bit better, and this is noticable on some cameras more than others. On an Elan IIe the 28-135 hunts a bit in dim light at the long end when the 28-105 wouldn't, but on a DRebel I can't see any difference. The aperture difference is negligable. For the photography I do (informal indoor, some weddings, marginal lighting), the Image Stabilization is a big deal. IS is the only thing that makes this lens better, but for what I do, it's substantially better.

 

My only issues with it are the size and the cost.

[tom_burke3]

I've never had or used the 28-135; I have had the 28-105 (the early one), and for a long

time it was my favourite lens.

 

About 15 months ago I got hold of a 24-85, and almost imediately came to prefer it to the

28-105. I find that extra 4mm at the wide end to be very valuable - more so than the focal

length at the long end that I lost. So, sorry to add to your confusion but my choice would

be for neither of the lenses you mention but the 24-85 instead.

[johnb]

Christian if money has nothing to do with the decision then get the 28-135IS otherwise get the 28-105 - both are good lenses.

[jt]

<p><i>...and is useless for sunset shots</i><br>

I think <i>useless</i> is far too strong a word; I took some beautiful sunset shots with my 28-135.</p>

<p>I had the 28-135 until it was stolen then I replaced it with the 28-105 <small>(which is now for sale in mint condition if anyone wants it; I'm in the UK)</small>. If I had to choose between the two again (I now use 24/50/100 primes) I think I'd go for the 28-135 lens simply because the Image Stabiliser is fantastic! If you don't carry a tripod, that is. It was a fantastic travel lens in the days before I started carrying a tripod, and although it's slightly slower and heavier I felt that the IS and longer possible handheld exposure times made up for it.</p>

[ernie_targonski]

I agree totally with Mr.Thurlow concerning 28-135 sunset shots. I have a many great (I think anyhow) sunsets and sunrises shot in the FL Keys and Chicago lakefront with a 28-135IS / EOS3. Use the hood and good technique. Needless to say, I have been very happy with the 28-135 / EOS3 combo. I do not have any experience with 28-105.

[cnhoff]

Well i guess the 28-135 will be the winner if it's in good quality. I think IS is very good for me, often going to the long end.

 

The ~0.6 loss in light at 100 or so is no problem, you think?! Well if i think about it, 1 stop is not so much, so i can answer this question myself eventually ;)

[cnhoff]

Oh and Thanks of course :)

[pedulla_giuseppe]

The 28-135 is of big long superior to 28-105. On 28-105 it is present a fall of neatness to the edges of the focal ones more court and the quality it clearly lowers on the whole frame to the most greater openings of the focal motto. 28-135 results very clearer. Only to the focal least it has a light distorsion.

Regards