Lens Comparison

[Jetmech1]

I currently have the Canon 28-135 IS lens. I seem to have a very good copy of the lens. So, I was looking at the new canon 24-105 F/4 L IS lens. How much better would the 24-105 lens be compared to the 28-135? I'm trying to decide if replaceing my 28-135 would be a justified cost. All 3 of my current lens gets used a lot. My 85mm is probably my favorite because of the results it gives me.

Thanks in advance for the comments/replies.

[blue_max]

I would say that you should do a back to back with your 85mm lens and the zoom at 85mm and take a few shots on a tripod if you have one, or a table top. Try at a couple of apertures (make them comparable). Then take a look and see if you think the difference is significant enough to change the lens for.

This is the least likely to bring massive differences as there are things like CA, purple fringing, flare etc that all have a bearing. When the chips are down and things become extreme, the L lens will cope better.

I don't think you will find it night and day. We all want the very best, but even a 10% improvement can cost triple the price. To some it's worth it.

To be honest, composition, framing, focus and creativity are 90% of the shot anyway.

Graham

[Jetmech1]

I would say that you should do a back to back with your 85mm lens and the zoom at 85mm and take a few shots on a tripod if you have one, or a table top. Try at a couple of apertures (make them comparable). Then take a look and see if you think the difference is significant enough to change the lens for.

This is the least likely to bring massive differences as there are things like CA, purple fringing, flare etc that all have a bearing. When the chips are down and things become extreme, the L lens will cope better.

I don't think you will find it night and day. We all want the very best, but even a 10% improvement can cost triple the price. To some it's worth it.

To be honest, composition, framing, focus and creativity are 90% of the shot anyway.

Graham

Thanks. A 10% improvement is probably not worth the cost.

[Jon]

I'd say that unless you really want the extra 4 mm at the wide end, and don't need the 30 mm at the long end, if you're satisfied with the image quality you're getting from the 28-135, there's no reason to change. For that matter, if you wanted the wide, and weren't planning on reselling the 28-135, adding a 17-40 L, which is rebated, would probably be a better deal.

[blue_max]

Thanks. A 10% improvement is probably not worth the cost.

Just to clarify, I don't have either lens and I was just using the figure as an example. It's probably unquantifiable in reality.

Graham