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

[tate]

I have a pre-order in with Adorama for one right now. I have a couple of 28-135s that I feel need to be replaced. I love their focal length, IS function, and weight, but not the image quality. I generally use these as a candid lense during wedding receptions, but the image quality has sometimes suffered for it. When I put it on my 10d, the problem is much more noticeable (due to the smaller sensor size, I believe). Also, the low-light autofocus is quite unsatisfactory (at least on my Elan 7 -- slightly better on the 10d). It's a versatile lense, but not one I would use for image quality. The same is true with the 24-85, it's relatively versitile and light, but not really sharp, and without IS I belive even less useful than the 28-135.

 

I shot with a friend's 24-70/2.8 one day and realized what I had been missing with the L glass. Unfortunately for me, 70mm is a rotton place to end a focal lenth, but 105 should work out perfectly. I intend to use the 24-105 lense as a primary portrait lense as well as versitile candids replacing both my 28-135 and 50/1.4 and 100/2.0. I'll still probably carry the 28-135 as a backup (for the price, it's a GREAT backup), but the 24-105 should become my new workhorse.

 

I've used the 70-200/4 L for a couple years now (the best value lense in the canon line up, IMHO) but I never wanted to fork out the cash for a 24-70 L zoom when it wasn't exactly what I wanted. Now I think with the 24-105 I'm going to get it!

[jim_larson1]

<i>I intend to use the 24-105 lense as a primary portrait lense as well as versitile candids replacing both my 28-135 and 50/1.4 and 100/2.0.</i>

<p>

Huh. Is F4 fast enough as a primary portrait lens? I reach for my trusty 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 for that sort of stuff.

[tate]

For me, yes. I generally shoot formal portraits at f4. Even though having the ability to shoot more open than that is nice, it's quite rare that I actually do so. Sometimes in very low light situations I take my 50/1.4 to 1.8 or 2.0, but it's very infrequent.

[leojan]

I read a lot about the so called high price. Do not forget you get an L lens with IS and a dream reach. In the Netherlands you pay about 700 euro for the 17-40L and I already saw the price for the 24-105L for 999 euro.

 

If you compare those prices it is a quite reasonable price. The difference between a 70-200 2.8 non IS and the one with IS is much bigger.

 

I own the 24-70L lens and I love the results. The weight is not the problem, but the size is BIG, the sun cap is BIG. Sometimes it can be an advantage to look like a professional photographer, but when walking the streets of a big city it do not. It attracts to much attending in my opinion. I feel much more comfortable with the 17-40L, but the reach is not a standard lens.

 

So I will read the reviews and take a good look at the size Maybe I will buy the 24-105L., If the quality of the results are comparably with for example the 70-200L 4.0 it could truly be a walk around standard lens.

 

I already have make the mistake to go for the cheaper lenses and then upgrade for the L?s. The only third party lens I still own is a Tamron 90 mm macro which I love. Bought it secondhand with a B&W filter for 230 euro and it still make me smile. All the Sigma?s I had sucked one way or the other, mostly much to soft. The price I got for the 15-30 when I sold it still make me weep. I bought the 12-24 secondhand so did not lose money, It was fun to play with the 12 mm on a EOS 1D MarkII, but you have to you use the saturation slider in Photoshop to much. Compare the color with the 17-40L with a Sigma and you know what I mean. I bought the Canon 50 1.8 and hated it. Junk. I upgraded it for an 1.4. It still does not have the feel of a Canon FD 50 mm but it is acceptable. I was quite satisfied with the Tamron 24-135 zoom but you can not compare it with a Canon L lens. All the L lenses I know a joy to work with. I rather have a 4.0 lens witch is good wide open then a 2.8 witch give you reasonable results at 8.0 ( Yes, most Sigma?s I know)

 

And do not forget L?s are a very good investment.

advantice

[jim_larson1]

<i>In the Netherlands you pay about 700 euro for the 17-40L and I already saw the price for the 24-105L for 999 euro. </i><p>

Well, if the 17-40/4L cost $700, and the 24-105/4L-IS cost $999 -> I would buy one tomorrow.<p>But the fact is that I bought my 17-40/4L for US$650 a year ago, and the 24-105/4L-IS costs US$1250. Further, the 24-70/2.8L costs about $100 less. That is just nutty!

[alam eldin]

So refreshing this thread is depend on some comparison between EF24-105 L and 28-135 IS or 24-85 as some one asked, so I still as myfellows who posted their opinion still waiting, I hope someone will post.

 

Regards

[kjeld_olesen]

http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/24_to_105/index.htm

 

The 28-135 performs very well in this comparison.

[john_kreamer]

<p>Anybody know where I can find a service manual or illustrated diagrams showing how to disassemble as 24-105mm f4 L?<br>

Thanks, Hommie</p>

[garybridger]

<p>This may be some time passing , But reading about the 105 vs the 135 . you say that the 135 that i have is OK for using and taking HQ photographs. Well , I think this thread has made my mind up to keep the 28-135 . yes its wobbly but does have IS and does take pretty good images . I just got a HMC filter for it to cut down the glare . had it cleaned by canon free as Im with CPS here in Malaysia . But the other day a bug was walking under the lens element, very open to dust and water. So I still ask Do I get the 24 to 105 or as this one when its ok take just as good photos a long as I am not against the sun. then may be the 24.70 2.8 would be the better choice. </p>