Canon EF 24-105mm IS USM L VS 28-135 IS USM Comparison

[alam eldin]

Hi,

 

Like the most of 28-135mm is usm owners I would like to know how much

the deffrence between the 2 lenses as my copy of 28-135 is sharp and

I use it with my 1V and 10D, but with L who can resist this beauty,

so please tell what do you think.

 

Thanks

[marrio]

Several differences. The 24-105 is built more solidly to professional standards instead of

feeling fragile and having cheaper plastic. It has the latest IS generation. Higher quality

internal lens elements for optimized image sharpness and colour performance. And the red

ring.

[PuppyDigs]

"The 24-105 is built more solidly to professional standards instead of feeling fragile and

having cheaper plastic."

 

It uses more expensive plastic?

 

My EF 28-135 IS USM is really prone to flare, especially with sunsets. Hopefully the 24

-105 L improves on flare issues. Heck, maybe they solved the zoom creep problem too.

And the dust vacuum effect.

[marrio]

Cheaper plastic construction. I abbreviated my sentence.

[damian_tinsley]

Specifically for Puppy,

 

ANY zoom which changes internal volume during zooming - irrespective of push-pull or twist has a tendency to suck in dust. It would be possible to filter this and it is just possible canon have done so if this is a weathersealed lens, as otherwise water could go the same way the dust does...

 

But without filtration, the 24-105 should be just as liable to suck in dust as your 28-135.

 

All the best,

 

Damian

[bobatkins]

Canon help a great deal in resisting this beauty by putting a $1200 price tag on it!

 

Of course to get full benefit from it you'd need to trade the 10D for a 5D, adding another $3300 or so.

 

Nice lens, but I think I'll be able to avoid being tempted. My 28-135 IS is pretty good too. I've been happy with it. The availablity of the new 24-105/4L hasn't affected the image quality at all as far as I can tell...

[marrio]

Plus, the extra 4 mm on the short end (24-105) is worth more than the extra 30 mm on the

long end (28-135). Be that with with a 1.6, 1.3, or 1.0 (FF) factor camera body. Because you

can always crop a little but you can't retrospectively zoom wider.

[ky2]

It's 4x as expensive. It better be a better lens.

[PuppyDigs]

<P><I>"ANY zoom which changes internal volume during zooming - irrespective of

push-pull or twist has a tendency to suck in dust."</I></P><P>You need to add more

information to your statement otherwise it lacks merit as an explanation, e.g., optical

elements move during focus and zoom operations and therefore displace air. Furthermore,

displacement of air in and out of the barrel assembly air draws in dust.</P><P> Although

all lenses suck in some dust--even primes--my EF 28-135 IS USM has more dust than any

lens I have owned. Probably the nested barrel design and loose construction (as in large

spaces between nested barrels) plays a significant role in the vaccum effect. </P>

[tony_san2]

Well, resistance is a matter of what you currently have, how much more the 24-105

brings, and at what price.

 

If the only lense you have is a 28-135, the 24-105 will bring a bit more wide angle, and a

bit less telephoto. The F4.0 is pretty slow, but the IS may save you from having to use a

tripod. I suspect it will probably be sharper than the 28-135.

 

If you have 24-70/f2.8 and a fast prime (ie: 50/1.4, 100/f2.0) then the 24-105/f4.0IS

saves you having to switch lenses for telephoto (ie: reaction time for changing focal

lengths when going to 100). The f4.0 will increase blur due to freeze motion, and you

may not be able to get that nice soft background blur of a fast lense. If you are going

hiking, the 24-105/f4 will certainly weigh less than a bunch of primes.

 

... All this can be yours ... for a cost of $1250 + s/h .

 

... hmm, I think I can resist this one.

 

 

Tony

[digitmstr]

I can say this: when I sold my 28-135 IS and replaced it with the 24-70L the difference was huge. All reviews of the 24-105L place it near the 24-70 so, I would assume you'll get the same jump in quality I have had. There are other benefits too: the build quality of the 28-135 wasn't impressive at all and te variable f/stop is foregone with the new L zoom.

 

If all of this is worth the equally huge jump in price it's up to you. For me, it certainly was.

[marrio]

The 24-105 F4's filter size is 77 mm, as opposed to 72 mm for the 28-135. Sharing filters

with the 17-40 F4, 70-200 F4, and 300 F4 in this common lens line-up is a good thing.

[alam eldin]

It will be so nice if someone has the 2 lenses will post pics comparison for both lenses in 28, 35, 50, 70, 105.

 

I think this would be very interesting.

 

Thanks

[ky2]

Wayne, the 70-200/4L has 67mm filter threads. The 70-200/2.8Ls have 77mm filter threads.

[PuppyDigs]

"It will be so nice if someone has the 2 lenses will post pics comparison for both lenses in

28, 35, 50, 70, 105."

 

You need to wait until Canon gets the 24-105 L fully to market. Only a small supply has

hit specially choosen shops thus far. Hardly anyone has the dad burn lens yet.

[marrio]

What they said.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Canon help a great deal in resisting this beauty by putting a $1200 price tag on it!

 

Indeed. In that same amount of money you can get 17-40/4 + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4. The two are not exactly an equivalent choices and each choice has distinctive advantages and disadvantages. Yet, if you ask me, the above set has much more appeal.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[jespdj]

<i>The 24-105 F4's filter size is 77 mm, as opposed to 72 mm for the 28-135. Sharing filters with the 17-40 F4, 70-200 F4, and 300 F4 in this common lens line-up is a good thing.</i>

<p>I agree, but for the price difference between the 28-135 and 24-105 L you can buy a bag full of filters. So if that would be the only advantage, it wouldn't be worth it.

[alam eldin]

Hi,

 

Yakim; I already have 17-40/4 50/1.4 + 70-200/4 and some other Ls.

 

I was in Istanbul 2 weeks ago with my family where it is preferable to have light combo, so I went with 16-35 f2.8L, 28-135is and EX-220 all with Elan 7.

 

Although I found this combo is 80% ok I prefered to have one L lens, but as you know 24-70 L is a heavy lens and prefered 28-135is for range, IS and weight, So I hope 24-105 L range will be very useful for traveling and as allaround lens for it's quality + rahge + weight.

 

This is why I hope to see some day a pictures comparison between the 2 lenses as I think 24-105 has been made to replace 28-135 i professional quality.

 

Thanks

[haunting_your_thoughts]

If I were happy with my copy of the 28-135mm lens by canon, I would refuse to switch. Is the extra 4mm that important? to some... yes. Those who care about the 4mm are the ones who probably have so much money coming in that they dont know of any other way to spend it than to put it into every new "L" lens that they see in the market. Infact, these are the ones who keep Canon in business. Not that I am anti-canon activist or something.<br><br>I have a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 which I am perfectly happy with even if I have to switch between my canon 18-55mm sometimes if i need that wide angle. However that soometimes is not so often that I would go out and buy a 24-105mm. True that for me it would be a longer range, but i already have a 100mm f2.0 and so I dont need the 24-105mm f4.0 L.<br><br>Do you have $1400 burning a hole in your pocket? If yes, then you can either get your 24-105 f4.0 L, or you can save your money for now and get something bigger and better. Perhaps that second flash or the much needed accessories that you cant live without. It all depends on your needs. I was at first excited about the new lens... but the f4.0 killed it.

[mike_lepp1]

I agree with Bob up there. If you're happy with what you're using, keep using it. That's my philosophy in these ever changing days. I'll use it until it dies or doesn't meet my needs. If you worry about what you read on the web you'll go nuts. Then again, the majority of problems I read about with lenses (etc.) either don't effect my images - even large prints - or I can use better technique to overcome it.

 

 

Now if your goal is to be crass... Then go for it!

[jon_austin]

Call me crass, then, because I'm planning to buy one of these lenses as soon as I've seen some decent reviews.

 

My current zooms are the 17-40, 24-85 and 70-200/4. I'm very happy with my two f/4L zooms, and I'm hopeful that the 24-105 will make a great replacement for my 24-85.

 

The 24-70 is just too big and heavy for my purposes. The 24-105 isn't as small or as light as I'd like for it to be (and the FL range is excessive), but it's better than the 24-70 on the size and weight counts, and this is what Canon has delivered to fill this gap in their lens line-up, so it's the best I can expect for some time to come.

 

Badger Graphics is a very reputable dealer (no affiliation), and is taking orders for the 24-105 at $1,095. Since B&H and Adorama are offering it for $1,250, this may be my first purchase from Badger.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I like my 28-135. But when I went digital with the 20D, the 17-40 became my most-used lens. And just as Giampi said about the 24-70, the 17-40 clearly has better optics than the 28-135. I expect that the optics of the 24-105 will place it closer to the 24-70 and 17-40 than to the 28-135; the MTF graphs show this, Chuck Westfall says this, and one initial review I saw a week or two ago says this, so it's probably true. The improved IS would also be nice; I find IS very useful. For me, the more robust construction and the weather sealing are nice to have but not necessary.</p>

 

<p>I have other plans for spending my money, though, while I wait for the new and shiny premium to wear off the 24-105. In another 1-2 years, I expect to trade up from the 28-135 to the 24-105.</p>

[robin_sibson1]

Decent reviews, Jon, that's another thing, but here's a coarse review based on a few hours with this lens. A dealer I had asked to keep a watching brief for me rang yesterday to say he had two 24~105s in and did I want one. I am off on a trip to Australia soon, and was concerned whether I would be able to get this lens in time, so since his price was not too painful I ordered one, and it reached me in less than 24 hours. Here's some initial impressions.

 

Nicely made, mostly plastic outside (also the extending lens barrel), very much like the 17~40. Focusing ring has a similar feel to that on the 17~40, the best I have encountered among Canon AF lenses. Zoom ring is very smooth indeed and has a strongly 'weighted' feel to it, as if it is moving some serious machinery. Little chance of zoom creep there, I would say. Substantial weight, but good balance and handles well, think 135/2 but a bit lighter and shorter. Hood is pretty similar to the EW-83DII, but fits on lightly and then clicks into place. When reverse mounted it only turns a small amount and sits skew on the lens.

 

I did a few quick comparison shots, carefully hand-held because that's the way I actually take photographs, so I'll spare myself the criticisms of the serious testers by not posting anything, but here's a few comments. All shots were taken on a 20D at ISO 100.

 

At 24mm f/4 results seem comparable with my TS24 at f/4, and not quite as good as the 17~40 at 24mm f/4 or the 10~22 at 22mm f/4.5 (hey, that's a good lens). However, on the APS-C-size sensor I got a pretty uniform sky with none of the vignetting reported in the CI test, so pehaps it cuts off strongly beyond the APS-C frame.

 

That's the bad news. The good news is that results at 50mm f/4 were almost indistiniguishable from the 50/1.4 at f/4, and at 85mm only a fraction worse than the 85/1.8 at f/4. That's AMAZING. The one noticeable difference was that the primes seem to let in about 1/3 stop more light, not surprising.

 

Oh, and I did also take a couple of shots with my wife's 28~135. No contest from that lens at 50mm f/4.5, but it showed up reasonably well at 85mm f/5.6 - those are its maximum apertures at those focal lengths.

 

Clearly I am going to need to do a few more comparisons in the 24 to 40 range before deciding whether the 10~22 and 24~105 between them cover the territory when I want to travel (relatively) light, or whether the 17~40 is still the lens of choice in that range.

 

Your mileage may vary. So, for that matter, may mine next time out. I did warn you it was a coarse review.

[jon_austin]

Thanks, Robin! Nothing I've read so far has changed my mind about buying one of these lenses. I'd still like to see a comparison between it and the 24-85 I'll replace with it, but I could probably extrapolate just as well from an in-depth comparison to the 28-105 (the good one) or the 28-135 (with IS off).