Is IS in L lens worth the $1000 difference in price?

[museebfoto]

<p>There is a minor difference in DxO score for the following two lenses, but there is a big difference in the price. Is IS in L lens worth the $1000 in price difference? or there is something else.<br /> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF28-105mm-f-3.5-4.5-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D</a><br /> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en/Lens-with-Camera/All-tested-lenses/Canon/EF24-105mm-f-4L-IS-USM/%28camera%29/176/%28cameraname%29/Canon-EOS-5D</a></p>

[nwphotog]

<p>yes</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Yes, plus the 28-105 was discontinued years ago.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you look, you'll also see their numbers indicate that the 24-105/4L IS USM is better than the 70-200/2.8L II IS USM, even though the latter is more than twice the price (over $1000 more) and pretty much everyone I know would tell you that the 70-200/2.8L IS II USM is the better lens.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Museeb,</p>

<p>What something is worth is a very difficult question to answer with so little information. Consider this, the Canon 200mm f2.8L costs $819, the 200mm f2 IS L costs $5,999, I have seen more f2 lenses than f2.8 lenses so some people thing one stop and IS is very valuable.</p>

<p>How much the difference between your two lenses would affect your enjoyment of your images is a question only you can answer. But there is more to the L lens than just IS, they do generally perform a bit better and often substantially better, but further to that they are better made out of more solid and well engineered materials, often have weatherproofing and contain exotic glass and or elements to more effectively control aberrations. L lenses also hold their value very well.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>I sold my 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM in 2006 after buying the 24-105 4L. Why? I liked the images from the L optic a lot more. Not that the 28-105 was bad. Indeed it was a great lens for the $225 I paid for it new in the early 90s. However, although reasonably sharp, it was prone to terrible flare and ruined many an image with the sun or even street lights in the picture. The greatly increased flare resistance and contrast over the 28-105 were worth the price of admission for me. The IS pretty much pushed it over the top.<br>

If you want a zoom with similar quality to the 28-105 but with IS, consider the 28-135 IS USM. It's less than half the price of the 24-105L, even more prone to flare than the 28-105, but a good compromise if you than IS but don't need L build and optical edge.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>70-300/4-5.6 IS L and non-L are probably a better comparison. Both are current, same focal length and aperture, and they are about $1000 apart.</p>

[matthias_meixner2]

<p>The 24-105 is by far the better optics even with IS switched off: Wide open the 24-105 delivers a much sharper image than the 28-105. So this is not just an IS vs. non-IS thing.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Unless you just don't have the money and can't get it somehow, IS is almost always worth what they charge for it; and, as said, the differences in price are usually not <em>only</em> the IS.<br>

Of course, the wider the angle of view, the less "necessary" it becomes and is merely "nicer", but still.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p><em>"There is a minor difference in DxO score for the following two lenses"</em><br>

I use to take my 28-105 every where I traveled, best $325 investment I ever made. It has now been replaced by my Sigma 17-70mm, which is not as good optically but it does have IS and wide angle capabilities. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>DxO results, I also note, are not universally accepted as a "gold" standard. Some things about them suggest (as Bob points out) that those numbers are sometimes, like your Uncle Fred that no one talks about, a little "funny".</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>This would be a flaw with nearly all lab tests of lenses. Whether it's DxO or photozone, or numerous others. They simply don't take into account all the variables we see on a daily basis. So, while it's perhaps rational to compare two lenses reviews and performances, they all must be taken w/ a grain of salt.</p>

<p> </p>

[museebfoto]

<p dir="LTR">Thanks to all </p>

<p dir="LTR">Indeed, I have Canon EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM. It has a good construction and sharpness as well as the Image Stabilization is not so critical in a such zoom rang. The bothersome is its non-linear distortion in some zooming rang ( but it much less than that from Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM which I have got rid of it quickly ).</p>

<p dir="LTR">I also have two L lens ( 17-40L F4 ) and ( 70-200L F4 ), yes they have a superior construction and sharpness. That is why I am seeking EF-L ( traveler ) zoom without S.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There is also a Canon EF 28-135 MM 1:3.5-5.6 <em>IS</em>, as mentioned by Puppy Face. Some people like it for what it costs. Recent prices on eBay for this one seem to go from <em>not</em> selling at offers for US$300 down to as low as below $200 for ones actually bought by somebody. It's close to first generation on the IS, but that is still very good.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>When directly comparing IS versus non-IS, no. </p>

[zafar1]

<p>The list price difference may be $1000, but in reality the difference is not that much. Canon 24-105 comes discounted as a Kit. So many people are selling brand new lens for 800$ to $900.</p>

<p>28-105 is not an impressive lens for Digital cameras. I will add my vote in favor 28-135 lens which has IS and is sharp (maybe not as much as 24-105, but you will be hard pressed to tell)</p>

<p> </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM was the lens I got when I moved up from an old manual-everything SLR to an EOS 35mm SLR. It was a good lens. I subsequently upgraded it to the 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM, and found that in addition to the obvious utility of IS and a bit more reach, it was a better lens. And then, after going digital, I upgraded to the 24-105/4L IS USM, and found that it was a better lens again.</p>

 

<p>Just my personal experience, not backed up by any laboratory measurements.</p>

[looscanon]

<p>Whether something is worth extra money is very subjective and can't be answered by anyone except the person making the purchase. I've found that IS on any lens I own is worth paying more for and I never think about the extra $1,000, but I'm not strapped for cash and when I buy a lens I generally don't care much about the price if it has the features I want and I can afford it at the time. Others may not be so fortunate, but as they say -- "if you have to ask the price you can't afford it."</p>

[sungho_jun]

<p>when you have IS, it is just so much easier to capture the moment. simple as that</p>

[pete_ferling]

<p>In some of my work, it can make the difference. I have shot in concerts with both a 28-135mm IS, and a 135mm f2L (no IS), and have shots with the cheaper kit lens that resulted in a higher ratio of keepers due to sharpness. In those conditions, all those qualities of having L glass didn't matter if I had to crank up the ISO a notch for the sake of a higher shutter speed to compensate.<br>

That experience was also the driving factor in picking up an EFs 17-55mm 2.8 with IS, as it also has L glass. Those two lenses cover the range I needed for events when using a 40d, (and is the reason I stuck with crop sensors and moved to a 7D as well). You find what works for you and stay with it.</p>