28-135mm vs 24-105mm L

[Marvin]

<p>I'm wondering of the 24-105mm L IS will represent a significant improvement in quality over my 28-135mm IS. I already have the 50mm 1.8, 10-22mm, 70-300mm, and the 100-400mm. I know that it represents a significant price outlay - will the image quality be worth it?</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Did you see this article?<br>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml</a><br>

for a real step up you might consider the Canon EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM. There is a good review of that on this site here: <a href="../equipment/canon/24-70/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/24-70/</a><br>

<strong id="mainContent"> </strong><strong id="mainContent">

<h1 ></h1>

</strong><strong id="mainContent"> </strong></p>

[g dan mitchell]

The 24-70 is not a "step up" from the 24-105. Both are excellent lenses with different advantages and disadvantages.

Depending on your needs and expectations either could be the best choice as a "step up" from the 28-135.

[JDMvW]

<p>I have had both - I got a 28-135mm IS for someone else. I was impressed, but kept the 24-105mm. ;)<br>

The 28-135 is an underrated lens, and many people who use it are very pleased with it.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>It depends what you plan on using it for. If you need the extra quality and have the money, then yes, it's worth it. Even if you don't need it, but like me, enjoy shooting with nice equipment, then it may still be worth it. You do get what you pay for, but if you put the camera on full auto and shoot toddlers from 200 yards, then you probably won't see a difference. I guess what I'm gettin' at is that it is probably worth the extra money, but like anything, only if it's used properly.</p>

[bfmelton]

<p>I have both. I keep the 28-135 on my 40D as a walk-around combination and use my 24-105 on my 5DII as my serious modeling/portraiture zoom. When I've put the 24-105 on the 40D, I've seen a remarkable improvement over the 28-135.</p>

[l_j_cappleman]

<p>I also have both. I found the 28-135 to be a fun lens and used it as my walk-around lens. If you, as I do, use the lower end of the f stops, then I think you will find the constant apature 24-105 to provide superior pictures.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I used the 28-135 for nearly a decade, first on film bodies and then on a 20D, before upgrading to the 24-105. The 28-135 is an above-average consumer zoom, and for several years was arguably the best consumer zoom in Canon's lineup. The 24-105 is definitely an upgrade, though, as you'd expect from the red ring and substantially larger price tag.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>I am not sure I agree that the 24-70 isn't a set up at leas to some degree. I probably should not have said "a real step up" as it is probably not as large as that. Also, I wasn't trying to take anything away from the 28-105. They are slightly different lenses to be sure. Personally, I think the sharpness of the f2.8 vs. the f4 trumps the additional focal length. I think their prices reflect this reality too - at leas to some degree. I am sure you can get results you happy with either lens. <br>

Since the poster already has a 70-300, I thought going with the 24-70 made the most sense. Having the 28-105 overlaps with the 70-300 an seemed a bit redundant to me. Of course you have to balance that against how often you end up changing lenses in the field. </p>

[alwin_lai]

<p>For the $, you're better off with the 28-105 3.5-4.5 lens. It is very good. IMHO the 24-105 f4L is not worth the money.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"Also, I wasn't trying to take anything away from the 28-105. They are slightly different lenses to be sure. Personally, I think the sharpness of the f2.8 vs. the f4 trumps the additional focal length."</p>

<p>The OP mentioned the 24-105 here, not an older (and out of production) 28-105. </p>

<p>The 24-70 is a "step up" from the 24-105... if you need f/2.8, want a bit less vignetting and barrel distortion at 24mm. The 24-105 is a "step up" from the 24-70 if you want IS, a larger focal length range, slightly lighter/small package. Both produce excellent image quality. The differences in personal preference are not so much about IQ as they are about functional preference. </p>

<p>Dan</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Canon don't make a 28-105 anymore. They dropped it a while ago (couple of years?).</p>

<p>As for the 28-135 vs the 24-105, the 28-135 is the better value, but the 24-105 is the better lens, especially if you are shooting full frame. Whether you see a difference in image quality depends how you look at the images and how good your eyesight is. 4x6 prints, no. Pixel peeping at 100%, yes. 11x14 prints viewed at a normal distance - quite possibly.</p>

[smarksphotography]

<p>Just for the record, I do wholly retract my statement that the 24-70 is a step up from the 24-105. I got my lenses mixed up a bit. I'd say its step sides ways and probably a bit off topic for this post. Sorry about that. I did originally think of mentioning it because the poster already the 70-300 though. </p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>Most of my shots are a little more than "quick snaps", but not to the extent that I take 15 minutes to an hour of precise set-up. For that type of use I like the 28-135 because I can move just a few paces to get the same perspective as a 24mm, but it can be quite a walk to go from 105-135 and I might miss the shot. I use film and usually scan no more than a real 4000PPI nor order prints larger than 12x18". For prints larger than that I have my trusty Mamiya 7II and a 4x5 with a damn sharp 210mm lens. </p>

<p>The 24-105 certainly has its place, especially at the lower F:Stops. However where, when and how I take most of my shots, F:8 - F:16, one practically needs to use a 50lb tripod and a test target to tell the difference in sharpness, and with a 50-100x microscope to boot. </p>

[dan_south]

There's no way to "get the same perspective" as a 24 mm focal length with a 28 mm lens. You can include more

objects on the edges of the frame by stepping back a bit, but the relationship of near to far objects will never match

the unique look of a 24 mm lens.

 

The inclusion of IS expands the usefulness of the 24-105 f/4 L. Camera shake/stability contributes a lot to image

sharpness. And the optics of the 24-105 (well, mine anyway) are impressive except for distortion which is well-

controlled with software. The 24-70 wouldn't be as useful to me for what I need in a midrange zoom, and I doubt that

it's as sharp as dedicated prime lenses or the 16-35 f/2.8L II at the wide end.

[art_thomas1]

<p>"There's no way to "get the same perspective" as a 24 mm focal length with a 28 mm lens."</p>

<p>True, but the smallest of difference for my type of shooting does not matter to me.</p>

<p>"The inclusion of IS expands the usefulness of the 24-105 f/4 L."</p>

<p>True again, but the 28-135 also has IS but an older generation. Again, for my type of shooting, it does pretty well.</p>

<p>Perhaps the real difference is that I do not have to make each shot count. Most of my photography is just for my own amusement or to give away to others. The little bit that I sell is not pre-commissioned. They can either buy what I have or not. I'll eat just as well either way. If I had a moral or business obligation to make my work conform exactly to a client's wishes, I, like you, would opt to use the 24-105. It's a great lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>[Dan]: There's no way to "get the same perspective" as a 24 mm focal length with a 28 mm lens."<br>

[Art]: True, but the smallest of difference for my type of shooting does not matter to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I knew what you meant, but I was in a pedantic mood today. Sorry! ;-) I find that I shoot at 28 mm at least as often as 24 mm if not more frequently. 28 mm has always been a compositional sweet spot for me. 24 can seem just a tad too wide in many cases.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[Dan]: "The inclusion of IS expands the usefulness of the 24-105 f/4 L."<br>

[Art]: True again, but the 28-135 also has IS but an older generation. Again, for my type of shooting, it does pretty well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>28-135 is a great zoom range if you don't need that last bit of "wideness." I didn't notice whether you were using this lens on a full- or crop-frame camera. I have a friend who uses the 28-135 extensively on his 60D. He loves it!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[Art]: Perhaps the real difference is that I do not have to make each shot count.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I can assure you that I don't come close to making each shot count. It would be nice, but the clunkers definitely outpace the keepers. I keep telling myself that it's because I'm being adventurous and I'm trying new approaches. ;-)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[Art]: I would opt to use the 24-105. It's a great lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That it is! Not perfect, to be quite honest, but very versatile and convenient and 'good enough' in most instances. I love mine and use it all the time.</p>

 

[lalon_karim]

<p>24-105mm is generally sharper than the 28-135mm. But the 28-135mm lens is actually a 28-120mm lens labeled as 28-135mm. U can shoot at it's "135mm" and compare it with any other 135mm lens. U will see that it is actually a 120mm lens at the tele end.</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>". Sorry! ;-)"</p>

<p>Don't be "sorry" at all! Your post and response are what makes Photonet good, valuable and interesting to its members. I look forward to your future posts. </p>

[chinmaya]

<p>I have 28-135mm, pretty good lens. I have made 16x20 prints, looks great. Some blogs say that 28-135mm has 2stop image stabilizer as compared to 3 stop in most modern lenses. 28-135mm complements very well with your 10-22mm, however I think 24-105mm IS makes better walk around lens both on crop and full frame than 28-135mm. If I could afford it I would go for 24-105mm. Also 28-135mm has loose-zoom issue, may not be a problem for many including myself.</p>

<p>Good luck deciding. You are thinking ahead of time, so you might just make it by holiday season :-)</p>

 

[robert_posey]

<p>I doubt there is a cut and dried answer to your question, Marvin. Too many things to consider. First, and foremost, buying expensive pro level equipment will not make you a professional. Nor will it get you better results per se. To achieve the very best results at anything, one must first learn the inherent requirements of that endeavor and then hone what they've learned into skills. Will buying yourself the best fencing foil that money can buy make you a better fencer? Obviously not. That would simply make you the owner of a fine piece of equipment - and very likely, disappoint you.<br /><br />There is a "preferred" use for both of the lenses in question. That said, I know photographers who can get "outstanding" image quality with a 20D and the 28-135 while others can produce only mediocre quality with the same camera using the 24-105L. It's not as much about the equipment as it is the skills to use it. My opinion: You can not get "significant improvement" in image quality from the 24-105L unless you possess the skills to do so. My advise: Save your money, hone your skills - and then get whatever lens "you" think will best benefit the outcome of your endeavors at that point in time.<br /><br />Regards,<br />Rob</p>

[louis_webb]

<p>I trialed the 28-135 for a over a week before returning it to the shop and getting the 24-105. The 24-105 is sharper, with less C.A. on my 5d (mk. 1). The pictures are just more 3d/contrasty. As a pure amateur, I also wanted my only lens to cover most bases and to feel fantastic to use. The I.S. does also seem to be more successful than the 28-135's. It is going to be my tripod lens as well as the walk around and in the latter role, it's great-'Haven't tried it on the tripod yet, as I need to get a larger filter system now (77mm filter thread/24mm wide angle=Lee/Hitec system).</p>

[art_thomas1]

 

<p ><a name="00YRIA"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5010972">Lalon Karim</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, Mar 22, 2011; 11:44 p.m.</p>

 

<p>"24-105mm is generally sharper than the 28-135mm. But the 28-135mm lens is actually a 28-120mm lens labeled as 28-135mm. U can shoot at it's "135mm" and compare it with any other 135mm lens. U will see that it is actually a 120mm lens at the tele end." </p>

<p> *********************</p>

<p>Photodo:<br /> <br>

<a href="http://www.photodo.com/lens/Canon-EF-28135mm-f3556-IS-USM-153">http://www.photodo.com/lens/Canon-EF-28135mm-f3556-IS-USM-153</a><br /> <br>

shows on their MTF test ,a range of 29-129mm This is not unusual. Even most magazine tests show a little difference between the stated and actual, as tested length for every lens. </p>

 

 

[lalon_karim]

<p>Hi Art!<br>

I know that effective focal length of lenses r slightly different than quoted length, specially when focused at shorter distances. But some says that 28-135mm is significantly shorter at the tele end, and thats why I posted that:<br>

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-135mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a><br>

"I should note that, at its 135mm setting, the 28-135 IS has a noticeably wider field of view than my <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-135mm-f-2.0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon EF 135mm f/2.0 L USM Lens</a> or my <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens</a> set at the same focal lengths at a relatively short distance. These lenses frame the 1200mm ISO 12233 chart at distances of 4035mm, 4700mm and 4798mm respectively. Focal lengths are rated for an infinity focus distance - so they *should* match at this focus distance if their ratings are correct."</p>

[gpsbrar]

Firstly, let me admit - I am not a very experienced photographer. Photography is my hobby. I have experience working

with both lenses. One came as a kit lens with my wife's camera and I had purchased 24-105 mm for my camera. Both

are excellent lenses. L-series has a better IS and faster AF motor in my opinion and experience. Also, L-series is

weather proof (doesn't mean it is water proof), heavier and gives a solid feel to the camera. The fixed aperture through

the entire zooming range gives one more flexibility to control DOF. After using it for sometime, I think L-series is for

professionals who can take complete advantage of it's potential. People like me, who just enjoy taking family

pictures...it is a bit of over spending because similar results can be obtained with 28-135 mm also with full auto mode.

Yes, if you are a pro...L-series is you.

Thanks to photo net members for educating me on essentials of photography. Never imagined there is so much

physics involved on photography.