Which lens has better image quality?

[korie_nordstrom]

Which lens is better? Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM or the EF 28-135mm

f/3.5-5.6 IS USM?

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Better for what?

 

What do you shoot? What do you shoot with?

 

Why are you focusing on these two lenses?

 

The 28-105 is shorter but a bit "faster" than the 28-135. But again what do you use these lenses for?

[korie_nordstrom]

I will be using it for babies and maternity shots using window light and sometimes a softbox.

[j_smith6]

Better?

 

You mean sharper, or which gives less distortion, better bokeh, which focuses faster or...?

[leopoldstotch]

Every test I've seen says that they are near identical in terms of sharpness/colour, etc. Some test pick the 28-135 as the slight winner, others pick the 28-105. It all comes down to which one you want: The faster one with a shorter focal length, or the slow one with IS. However, for the purpose you mentioned, there are MUCH better lenses out there for the same price (I.E a 50 f1.4). This type of shooting is best suited to a prime lens.

[j_smith6]

<i>I will be using it for babies and maternity shots using window light and sometimes a softbox.</i>

<br><br>

Why don't you buy a fast, sharp prime like 50mm lens?

[korie_nordstrom]

yes, I plan to purchase the 50 f1.4 as well but want a zoom too.

[jimstrutz]

Then buy the 28-135. Of course it's the better lens. Anyone can tell this by looking at the price tags. :)

 

OK, seriously, I still think it's a better lens for most things. It is at most, a half stop slower, and the addition of image stabilization makes it more usable in marginal light situations. Optically, they are similar, but the 28-135 is also considerably larger, and uses 72mm filters instead of 58mm.

[jimstrutz]

BTW, I've decided to sell my 28-135. I don't like the focal length for my digital camera. It was great for the film camera, but the 20D has a smaller frame and I don't like the crop. I prefer wider general use zooms, but it's a personal preference.

 

Anyway, if you want mine, it's $300 and comes with the lens hood. The zoom has gotten loose, but that is a common complaint as they wear. Otherwise, it's a great lens.

[J.W. Wall]

After the 50mm, this is another vote for the 28-135mm because of the IS. You may find that you use it for other shots, too, as it is a good deal more versatile with the IS.

[tommyinca]

28-135 IS, I have one. It is a good lens that cover normal to telephoto range on a 1.6 crop body (45-210) or a full range lens on a full frame camera. Should also work well with a 50mm prime.

[mark u]

You don't say what camera you are using, but I would choose an 85mm f/1.8 on a crop camera to add to a 50mm, in preference to either zoom for shooting babies.

[robert lee]

"I will be using it for babies and maternity shots..."

 

The 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 combination will give much better results than the zoom. Add the 35mm f2.0 if your budget allows.

[sal_lad]

Unless your subjects are moving around (and babies like to do this)A fixed focal length lens is your best choice. On a cropped sensor the 50 is good. On a full frame sensor the 85 or 100 has it.

[andrew robertson]

I have owned both at one time or another. The 28-105 is a bit more compact, but the

28-135 has IS which is invaluable!

[bobatkins]

Judge for yourself:

 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html

 

I don't think there's a great deal in it. The 28-135IS is worth the extra cost because of the wider zoom range and the Image Stabilization. Based purely on image quality, there's not much to chose between them.

 

The "II" version of the 28-104/3.5-4.5 is optically identical to the original version. The changes were mainly cosmetic.

 

The 28-105 has the adventages of being a bit smaller, a bit lighter, cheaper and taking smaller (58mm) filters.

[korie_nordstrom]

I'm using a Canon 30D (1.6 crop) I do like the 80 f1.8 but I don't have alot of working space, so I thought the 50 would be better for me. All I have is the kit camera which is a zoom, I've never used a prime and I guess to only buy primes makes me a little nervous.

[brian robinson]

I have used the 28-105 and it is just fine. A friend of mine has the 28-135 and his work

looks just fine. To me they are the same on image quality. The IS on the 135 is a plus and so

is the compact size for the 105. Your choice.

 

Cheers

Brian

[keith_van_hulle1]

Not to muddy the waters but I would suggest looking at a Tamron 17-50/2.8. Since it's faster, it'd basically make up for the loss of IS and the aperture is constant thru the zoom range. You've got something a little wider for getting close to the child and IQ should be close enough to the Canons. You lose the long end but IMO, for child shooting, it'd be worth it.

[amol]

Jim, what are you replacing, or going to use instead of the 28-135?

 

I think, Keith may have a point about the Tamron. I've heard lots of good things about it. I'm thinking about getting one.

 

I have the 28-105 it is great general purpose lens on my film SLR. But on digital a 28mm is not wide enough as a general-purpose lens. The Tamron 17-50 f.28 sounds really useful.

 

Amol

[jimstrutz]

Hi Amol, I already replaced it with the Canon 17-55 f/2.8. Actually, since switching to small frame digital several years ago, I haven't used the 28-135 but a few times. Right now it's just taking up space.

 

I'm also getting rid of a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8. I thought I could save money by buying it instead of the Canon, but focus is not reliable in low light. I have to stab the AF button at least twice to make sure, and that doesn't work for weddings. If you're not in a hurry it will work, otherwise it's a good lens. $275 if you want to try it. You can recover that much from it on eBay.

[crelight]

>> The "II" version of the 28-104/3.5-4.5 is optically identical to the original version. The changes were mainly cosmetic.

 

There is actually, one difference. 28-105 (I) has 5 diaphragm blades and (II) has 7. This gives slightly better bokeh, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

 

I had version I, II and the 28-135 IS. Sold all and never looked back again. They loose in sharpness/contrast/color vibrance department to any, no matter how cheap, prime. Colors are mutted, never sharp unless stop down to about f/8 and even then they don't shine, lack of contrast.

 

I would reckon on a cropped camera a single 28mm or 35mm prime would do the job nicely, especially if paired with 85mm f/1.8 for close up portraits. For a full-frame camera, I'd pick 50mm + 100 (135)mm primes.

[mars c]

I think the 2 are about the same in IQ , practically speaking that is...<p>

 

But if you add other factors to the 28-135, like IS and longer range, I think the 28-135 is overall a better package and a better buy.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.acapixus.dk/photography/24_to_105/35.htm" >Click this comparison and see for yourself.</a>

[tommyinca]

Check out Wil Castlemen's test and report on these two lems. He done a good & detailed job on his reviews. His report also seems fair and accurate.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I upgraded from one of the 28-105/3.5-4.5 lenses (the second half of the first generation, which is identical in every way that matters to the II) to the 28-135, and when <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/writings/eflenses.html" target="_blank">I tested them against each other</a>, I found the 28-135 won, overall. It's not best in every single way, but it beats the 28-105 by at least a slight margin more than it loses. The extra range is handy at times, and IS is handy a <em>lot</em> (for me, anyway).</p>

 

<p>If the price, size, weight, and filter size differences aren't significant to you, get the 28-135.</p>