Canon 24-85 vs 28-135 IS

[partialresponse]

Ignoring the focal length ranges, which of these two lenses produces better pictures on the 10D? I'm about to buy a 10D and am looking for a decent lens to go with it. I have the standard Canon 35-80 III and Canon 80-200 USM that I've used for years with my old Rebel XS.

Thanks

Kofi

[brault]

They are both fine lenses. I just got my 10D and already had a 24-85. The pictures are very sharp, although on my lens the sharpness falls off a little as you get to the left corner. I just got the 28-135 IS and I did do some comparison pictures and my copy of the 28-135 is sharper than the 24-85, especially towards the left corner. I have not had a chance to compare them yet for color fringing, etc.

If the extra 4mm on the wide end is not critical for you I would recommend the 28-135 IS. At least in my versions of the two lenses it is the sharpest and it has the benefit of IS as well as a greater focal length range. Photodo rates the 24-28 at 3.1 and the 28-135 at 3.5.

The first picture is from the 24-85 and the second from the 28-135. Both have been worked on in PS. In addition to sharpening etc., in the first picture I also removed part of a building in the lower right hand corner. In the second I blurred the background to reduce DOF.

Frank B

http://www.fototime.com/%7B3E3DA8F8-F585-412F-B6AE-D550F9C40873%7D/picture.JPG

http://www.fototime.com/%7B5D82019E-BAE4-4C98-BA54-C2EFFB04F64A%7D/picture.JPG

[partialresponse]

Thanks for the response. Since you have both lenses, could you possibly shoot the same scene (or subject) with both and post the pictures? One picture at the wide end (say 30mm) like the first picture, and another close up like the second picture would be nice!

Kofi

[Jeppe]

The EF 24-85 is slightly better in contrast and colours, but you will gain some stops with the IS.
Also the EF 24-85 is really good @ 24mm (38mm) and you will probably want wider than 38mm (35-mm equivalent) so i think the 28-135 is a better choice.

[brault]

Comparison posted at:

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/pictures?userid={232C13F7-84AF-4195-9B69-D8D8FE960C58}&AlbumId={C2471041-E100-4C0A-9BDE-A7722B2DCD4C}&GroupId={EE825B81-06DC-49D5-8366-D07A57D598F6}

Notes

1. IS was on in the 28-135 pictures. This is because I take virtually all my pictures handheld. However, at these shutter speeds it should make little difference. I may do a few comparisons with IS off.

2. Exposure compensation set to minus 1/3 for the outdoor pictures. This is my normal setting.

3. The flash pictures were taken at 1/200 to avoid camera shake.

4. The 24-85 appears to generally use a lower exposure than the 28-135.

6. In my posted photos the 28-135 appears sharper to me in all the indoor pictures. In the outdoor pictures at 35mm the 24-85 appears sharper. This made me wonder. It is raining today so I could not do a good test, but I did a couple at 35mm and the 28-135 appeared at least as sharp as the 24-85. When the weather clears I will reshoot at 35mm and post.

Frank B

[partialresponse]

Frank,

thanks so much for taking the time to do this. It is difficult for me to tell which of the two is better. I will continue to pore over them for a while. If they are about equal, I will get the 24-85 since it's cheaper.

Thanks

Kofi

[partialresponse]

Jeppe wrote:
The EF 24-85 is slightly better in contrast and colours, but you will gain some stops with the IS.
Also the EF 24-85 is really good @ 24mm (38mm) and you will probably want wider than 38mm (35-mm equivalent) so i think the 28-135 is a better choice.

Jeppe,

Thanks much for your comments. I don't understand your last sentence though. I do intend to get something wider as well....down to 17mm. I'll ask that in another thread.

Rgds
Kofi

[brault]

Either lens is a fine lens. I have posted some more pictures at approximately 35mm, f8 and maximum aperture. As I suspected, in these the 28-135 is at least equal to the 24-85. I took the 28-135 pictures at ISO 400, but had to drop down to ISO 200 with the 24-85 as I was getting a shutter speed that was not fast enough to avoid over exposure. I have included two pictures from the 28-135 at each fstop one with IS and one without IS. At these shutter speeds IS is not necessary.

Frank B

partialresponse wrote:
Frank,

thanks so much for taking the time to do this. It is difficult for me to tell which of the two is better. I will continue to pore over them for a while. If they are about equal, I will get the 24-85 since it's cheaper.

Thanks

Kofi

[brault]

I have posted more pictures at 28mm and 85mm, f8 and wide open, for both lenses. I have also posted 24mm, f8 and wide open for the 24-85 and 135mm for the 28-135. For the 28-135 I have included IS and Not IS.

Hope they help. This is it, although I probably should have taken some with a tripod. In any-case, I am keeping my 28-135. My own assessment is that the 28-135 is sharper at some focal lengths and the 24-85 at other focal lengths. I'm not sure about contrast and saturation as the exposures vary. In any-case they are so close in quality that I think you could go with either one. The reason I am keeping the 28-135 is for the extra focal length on the long end and for the IS.

Frank B

[partialresponse]

Thanks man! I think I will go with the 24-85 since I plan to get another lens for focal lengths greater than 80mm.

Kofi