Canon EF 28-70/2.8L USM vs. Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM according to photodo.

[tommi_syvanpera]

Hi all,

 

There has been a lot of discussion about image quality and what is

enough. Some people say that the difference between EF 28-70/2.8 L

and EF 28-135 IS is noticeable. I'm trying to figure out which one to

purchase. My biggest concerns are image quality and weight. If the L

lens is clearly better the price of it is not a concern.

 

This lense would mainly be for landscape shots stopped down a bit

with a tripod. I like to make long hikes wiht my camera equipment so

the weight is also an issue. Although I probably could live with the

880 g if necessary.

 

When I say image quality I'm not actually yet sure what I mean since

I only want quality that is enough. For example to produce A3 prints.

There must be a line where the quality reaches a point after which a

human observer no longer sees the difference. For example a lens that

produces 500 lp/mm would clearly be 'too' sharp (or?). I guess my

question is whether the line goes between the two above mentioned

lenses or somewhere else.

 

If you take a look at photodo MTF graphs (I know some of you don't

like looking at them;) to me it actually seems that the 28-135 IS

performs better wide open than 28-70/2.8L also the other curves seem

pretty much similar, only at 28 mm it looks that the L lense performs

much better (except wide open). Am I missing something here? Isn't

speed what costs in the L lens (in addition to the L). Maybe I just

don't know how to read the graphs.

 

OK the curves at 135 don't seem so good but I am planning on getting

the EF 135/2L anyway. It just seems that the 28-135 IS would be a

pretty good lens for focal lengths 28-85 mm.

 

Thanks a lot for your input.

[bob stewart jacksonville]

If your goal is landscape photos with a tripod, the 28-70 2.8L is a better choice. It's faster, and sharper. I realize that mostly you'll shoot landscapes stopped down some, but having the option of the 2.8 can be valuable for low light and selective focus. If your primary use is landscapes, you might well want to consider several nice primes, such as a 24, 50 and 85. Doing landscapes, the ability to quickly zoom, as opposed to changing lenses is not a significant issue.

The 28-135's forte is the ability to cover a moderate range with one lens, and the IS capability. Consequently it's a great lens if you're going to only carry one lens, and not carry a tripod, but it's not the best choice if your going to always use a tripod anyway.

[jay_.]

I don't think either lens is ideal for landscape photography. For roughly the cost of a new 28-70/2.8 you could buy a new Mamiya 645E+80/2.8 kit and a couple more used lenses like a 45 and 150. If you're always shooting on a tripod, there's no need to pay for the IS. A 28-105/3.5-4.5USM is at least as good optically and lighter and cheaper. I'd go the MF route myself.

[jackflesher]

I had a 28-135 IS and I have to say IMO it performed on par with most of the other L zooms I have used other than the 70-200 2.8 IS (which is nothing short of INCREDIBLE!). Additionally, I have found the Photodo results to be consistently accurate. The 28-135 IS can be had in very good condition used for about $350, while the 28-70 is running more like $850. (However, I must admit that I recently sold mine in favor of a few primes which I found to perform slightly better with less bulk.)

 

IF you are doing primarily landscape photography, and are considering springing for the 28-70, what Jay says about considering an MF solution for about equivalent $$$ has a lot of merit. (I just saw a complete Bronica ETRS outfit with four lenses, 2 backs and an AE finder for sale at just over $1000.) However, if you want the zoom lens for other purposes as well, the cheaper solution may be the better one.

[isaac sibson]

Take a look at <a href="http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm">this</a>, and then think about it. Also consider the 24-85, since you're stopping down.

 

I don't personally find photodo to be all that accurate. Their rating of 3.4 for the 300 F4L IS is way off, since the 4.1 rating of the 70-200 F4L suggests that it is better, and good as the 70-200 F4L is, it is not as sharp as the 300 F4L IS (and I have both).

[mr.g]

Some people say that the difference between EF 28-70/2.8 L and EF 28-135 IS is noticeable.

 

Well people say allot of things not always facts.

 

What are you using film or digital. Printing wet or inkjet prints? Yes the 28-70 is sharper on the edges for film {at some points} but on digital IMHO not worth the disadvantages like weight or size. If you are printing to an inkjet printer it is near next to impossible to tell the difference.

 

Best advice play with them both and find which works best for you.

Remember that the 28-135 is a consumer lens and has nowhere near the same build quality as the 28-70.

F2.8 is very very nice.

IS is very very nice.

28-70 is dated and a new lens should be announced at photokina. It might be worth the wait you might get the best of both worlds.

 

After owning both personally I perfer the 28-135 even though I miss the depth of field of the 2.8 for reference though I'm using a D30 and pinting with an epson up to 13X19. With my EOS 3 8X10 traditional prints are not a problem with the 28-135. If I were to go large I might wisk out my 50 1.4 for film.

 

For the ultimate quality you want to stick to primes or switch to medium format. To compare a 28-135 to a 28-70 it's like red apples and yellow apples yea they are both different but your choice is mostly guided by taste and I guess if you are baking pies.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

[Troll]

I've had two 28-135IS lenses. The first one was absolutely wonderful, probably as good or better than my primes. My second (current) lens, is unfortunately a dog. Have you considered the 28-105?

[steve_dunn2]

<p>photodo's MTF graphs seem, mostly, to match reviews/tests from other sources and people's comments. Their single-number ratings are to be ignored entirely.</p>

 

<p>Stopped down, the biggest difference between the two lenses is likely to be distortion - the 28-135 distorts heavily at the wide end, as is typical for consumer zooms.</p>

 

<p>See also <a href="http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html">http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html</a>, particularly the test at f/8.</p>

[brucepercy]

I would agree with Steve on this one.

 

I owned the 28-135 and sold it because I had hankered for the 28-70 for a long time.

 

I've since found that I really miss the IS capability of the 28-135 as well as it's

lightness.

 

However, I've compared a lot of shots taken with both and the 28-70 has far less

distortion at the wide angle setting. The edges of the images hold better than they did

with the 28-135.

 

I guess it depends what sort of photography you're into. I do mainly landscape work, but

I also like travelling, which is why I am considering getting another 28-135.......

 

Hope this helps,

Bruce.

[tommi_syvanpera]

Thanks everybody for your answers. They have really helped me a lot. It is pretty difficult to make up your mind and gets worse the more you think about the differet qualities of the equipment. I think I'll go for the 28-135 IS for the following reasons:

 

1. Its lighter than 28-70/2.8L

 

2. The quality seems very good when stopped down.

 

3. The filter size is the same as the 135 mm I'm going to get.

 

4. IS capability allows me to take it along when travelling without a tripod.

 

5. I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom when photographing out in the wild.

 

6. I don't think distortion is a very big problem in nature landscape photography (most of the time anyway).

 

MF is something for me in the near future, but the nature of photography is completely different. It is another story. I don't think I would ever take MF equipment with me on a long hike in the wilderness.

 

Thanks, Tommi

[gareth_harper]

Why not buy a Tokina 28-80 f2.8 and save a fortune.