igort Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I am deliberating whether I should return/sell my 28-135mm because I want to buy the 24-70. I just don't know whether it's a good idea or not. The 28-135 is nice, it's light, and makes great shots and it has IS. The 24-70mm on the other hand is very heavy but makes excellent pictures. It obviously is a better lens, but my question is do I really need the 28-135 if I'm going to be buying the 24-70? Do I really need the 28-135 at all? Give me some of your comments and/or suggestions. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve torelli Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Short answer is No. The 28-135 is a decent consumer zoom but it's not in the same league with the 24-70. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwhite3.0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 My first or second lens was the 28-135mm. Several lenses later I now have the 24-70mm. Would I have kept the 28-135mm if I didn't need the money? Yes. The 24-70mm is a beast but optically I am very happy with it. The 28-135 isn't amazingly sharp but it is more discrete, has IS, and gets you to 135mm vs 70mm. Different situations call for different lenses and there are times (e.g. hiking) that the 28-135mm would be more useful. For portraits I would rather use the 24-70mm. If you can afford it, keep the 28-135mm around and then decide. It's a versatile walk-around lens. If you are on a cropped SLR body and prefer to be at the wide end then maybe the 24-70 is preferable. After some time, if you find the 28-135mm hasn't come out of the bag in months then maybe it is time to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwhite3.0 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Not to take back everything I said but...I just had my coffee... 1. Do you already have focal lengths 70 to 135mm already covered by other lenses? If not but can live without this range then maybe dump the 28-135mm. 2. Also, your situation is a little different than mine. You still have the 28-135mm. I have the 24-70mm and would I buy the 28-135mm as a lighter walk-around lens? No. I guess I am in Steve's camp afterall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_murray2 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "Short answer is No. The 28-135 is a decent consumer zoom but it's not in the same league with the 24-70." Right you are. The 24-70 has half the telephoto reach and no IS. If the only thing that counts is that "L" and the bragging rights to a >$1000 lens then your answer holds water. If you're buying based on getting the right tool for the job then maybe consider the 24-105 as a fairer comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
images_in_light_north_west Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 17-40f4 and 24-105f4 and you have 17-105 f4 with most covered with IS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cotsen Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I picked up a 24-70, and I never use my 28-135 anymore. The images are much sharper, and better quality. This is now my go to lens for portraits and nature shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve torelli Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 "Right you are. The 24-70 has half the telephoto reach and no IS. If the only thing that counts is that "L" and the bragging rights to a >$1000 lens then your answer holds water. If you're buying based on getting the right tool for the job then maybe consider the 24-105 as a fairer comparison." You may want to consider that the 24-105 is also an "L" and also a $1000+ lens. The value of the 24-70 vs the 24-105 is a well- worn topic that can be researched rather easily and doesn't need to be rehashed here. Whether it's the right tool for the job depends on the job that needs to be done and by whom. The OP asked about the 24-70 and the value of keeping his 28-135. The 24-105 is a good suggestion but, like I said, opens up another can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_goodlad Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I have had the 28-135 and also the 24-70. If you are going to spend the cash on the 24-70 then it would be the lens to use,why would you need the 28-135,ok the reach is longer but i found that most pictures are taken at the wide end. I bought the 135 f2 lens to complement the 24-70 and found that to be a great combo. Sell the 28-135 put the money to better use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Actually, the 24-105/4L was the first thought that popped into my mind as I read this thread. First. . .look, if you have a DSLR -> there is no such thing as "stealth". An XTi with a 28-135/IS is a big camera with big lens. A 30D with a 24-70 is also a big camera with a big lens. Want an small "stealth" camera? Get a Sony Cybershot. Seriously. I have a P&S just for those stealth moments. Your choices are a balance of these considerations; 1) Cost. 28-135 is 1/3 the cost of the other options. Enough said. 2) The 24-105/IS and 24-70/2.8 is a balance between image stabilization and F2.8 for portraits and low light action. Which is more important to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknagel Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Had both, ONLY used the 28-135Is on vacation for weight savings. Other than that, I never used it because hte 24-70L is so much nicer. m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_murray2 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I have the 24-70, and I used to have the 28-70/2.8. Great, sharp lenses. But I never, ever could go without the 70-200/2.8 in the bag as well. As a one-lens outfit I would bang into 70mm all the time. For me (and most professionals I would imagine) 70 is to short for portrait use, because getting a head shot means getting inside a lot of people's personal space and unless you have time to gain a report with the subject, it can mean a lousy shoot. The 28-135 or 24-105 are lenses that can stand alone, the 24-70 needs a partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 My view is summarized by these two points: 1. >>> If you can afford it, keep the 28-135mm around and then decide. <<< (JW) you can then decide if you use the 28 to 135 or not. If not and you want a better long end then: 2. >>> the 135 f2 lens (is a) to complement the 24-70 and [...] a great combo <<< (jg) WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Collins Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I agree that the 24-70 needs a partner. I had both and actually sold my 24-70 because the range wasn't enough, and I had hoped that what eventually panned out to be the 24-105 f/4 was going to be a 24-135 f/4 or better, f/2.8 (which would've cost a fortune, I'm sure). I will probably acquire the 24-105 but I still hold out hope that Canon will replace the 28-135 with a quality successor. I'm having a hard time convincing myself that the 24-105 is $800 better than the 28-135, and currently the 28-135 is doing a fine job. While I agree that it's obviously not an L-series lens, used properly it's capable of great performance and is, in my opinion, an underrated lens. It is, however, featured in the latest Canon ads, which I find interesting since it's been around for 10 years now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_myers Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Hi, I replaced the 28-135 IS with the 24-70/2.8 in my kit. The 28-135 is a decent lens, but I'm still glad I made the change. There is a big difference with an f2.8 constant aperture and 2mm is not an insignificant difference at the wide end of things. I don't find the 24-70 to be all that big, cumbersome or intrusive (but it's not exactly subtle either) and it's exceptionally close focusing. I did seriously consider the then-new 24-105, but couldn't live with f4 and have little need for IS at these focal lengths, although I swear by it on longer lenses. One nitpicky thing I hated about the 28-135 was "zoom creep" when carrying it around mounted on a camera. I also have and use (a lot) 70-200/2.8 IS (which is a much more intrusive lens than the 24-70, due to size, weight and color)... plus a wider zoom and faster primes, some in overlapping focal lengths. So, I'd have to agree with Tom it's good to have some complimentary lenses with the 24-70, since it's a fairly tight and specific range. I haven't added the 135/2 yet, but probably will as soon as Canon equips a version with IS. Or, if I go back to full frame cameras, I would consider the 135/2 even without IS. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenn_s Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Just to make it more complicated - you could always return the 28-135, get the 24-70, and also get the $250 28-105 (the good version of the 28-105). The 28-105 is noticeably smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 28-135. It's not IS, but it has great optics and is small enough to be a good walking around lens. Just a thought. Glenn Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igort Posted July 24, 2007 Author Share Posted July 24, 2007 I forgot to respond a bit earlier but, I do have a 70-200mm f/4 L Lens and I think it's reach will complement the 24-70 if I get it. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimstrutz Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 The 70-200 is a better compliment to the 24-70 than it is to the 28-135. Optically the 24-70 and 70-200 are similar in quality and handling, and there is not as much overlap in focal length. Also, the 24mm wide end is far more useful than a 28mm wide end. The two L lenses make a great combination. Now all you need is something wide. Igor, I still prefer the 17-55 f/2.8 IS, but that argument was "so last week." :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogbert Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I sold my 28-135 IS when I got my 24-105L. However, I ended up buying a 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM for those moments when I do want stealth and also to use with my film camera. I agree the 28-135 IS is a big lens (and the 24-70 is even bigger) but the 28-105/3.5-4.5 is very small, optically as good as the 28-135 IS and will get you maybe $170 net back if you sell the 28-135 IS. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajpn Posted July 30, 2007 Share Posted July 30, 2007 I formerly had the 28-135 IS and was absolutely happy to get rid of it. For a year and half I used only primes. Now I have the 24-70 L and anxiously look forward to the day I can relieve myself of it as well. It's too big and even though the optics are nice, it's like carrying around a ball and chain. Back to primes I am heading. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now