Is the 24-70L sharper than the 28-135IS?

[sigler]

OK, maybe a really dumb question, but:

Is the 24-70L 2.8 sharper than the 28-135IS? I'm thinking of selling my 28-135 and replacing with the 24.

Any thoughts?

Rob

[Belmondo]

I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on this one, Rob.

I've only had my 24-70L a couple weeks, and I bought it mainly to plug the gap between my 17-40L and 70-200L. I'm very glad I did.

Of course, this means that the 28-135 is now totally redundent, and to be honest, I haven't used it for quite a while anyway. The 28-135 is such a useful range, however, I might just keep it for non-critical situations where the focal range is appropriate.



To answer your question, all of the aforementioned L lenses are considerably sharper than the 28-135. But as to clarity and sharpness, the 24-70L is the best of all of them.

Hope that helps.

Tom

[sigler]

Thanks for your reply...

Can you post some sample pics? Nothing fancy..just so I can see the quality?

Thanks so much,

Rob

[Belmondo]

I'd love to except I'm 'on the road,' and don't really have access to anything I'd consider worth running up the flagpole just now.

When I get back home ----

In the meantime, maybe someone else will.

Tom

[DonCoon]

belmondo wrote:
I'm surprised more people haven't jumped on this one, Rob.



Could it be the $1,300 price tag?

Makes the 17-40 look downright cheap at $700 ; )

[Belmondo]

No, what I ment was there are a lot of them out there, and most of the owners are outspokenly pro 'L' glass. Sigler's question was, "Is the 24-70L 2.8 sharper than the 28-135IS?"

Perhaps there aren't that many people who've owned both. I'm just surprised nobody else had responded.

---and you're right. It is expensive, but that wasn't his question.

Thanks,

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

:0 yeah,. it is pricey,. but I think he meant that he was surpirsed more 24-70 owners (of which there are a few on the forum) hadn't jumped in.

I WISH I could afford it :(

Right now I have a sizeable gap in my range,. I have the 17-40mm f/4 L

And the Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 (with a possible Dell/Canon IS version,.. some day)

And in between I have only the 50mm f/1.8 and the low budget Sigma 28-300mm... which I no longer like to use haveing experienced "good glass"

I dream about the 24-70mm L,.. but i think I may end up with the Tokina XR instead.

[justme_dc]

Yes, yes it is much sharper. It also weighs like 60 pounds.

[Belmondo]

justme_dc wrote:
Yes, yes it is much sharper. It also weighs like 60 pounds.

Nothing wrong with that ---

Great pictures with excercise as a bonus!

[CyberDyneSystems]

lol,. thats how i got in shape this past summer,. trekking through the woods and marshes with my 50-500mm Zoom and a monopod! :D

[elm54]

Okay I'll try.... I don't have a 28-135 but I do have a 24-70.
http://www.pbase.com/elm54/root Just about everything with only a few exceptions in"First Steps" is shot with it . Any limitations you see are me.
I like it , it is heavy, and great to use for walking around. did I say it is heavy cause it is.;). You do tend to get into the middle of what you are shooting ,but it does have good range too. It was the second lens I bought after the 50mm. I haven't decided on which is next the 70-200, a 300mm or a 100-400. I'm leaning toward a 300.
You won't be sorry if you buy the 24-70, it is expensive compared to a 28-135.

Hope this helped ,
Eric

[DonCoon]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:


I dream about the 24-70mm L,.. but i think I may end up with the Tokina XR instead.

Help me here.
Looking on: http://www.photozone.de/

I see the top rated Tokina in "Standard Zooms" is the 28-70 f2.8 AT-X Pro SV. Rated optically at 4.40, it places third behind Canon's 24-70L (4.63) and 28-70L (4.50). Only caveat is there are only 8 people rating the Tokina and 110 the Canon 28-70L --- but only 12 rating the 24-70L.

A price check shows it at $279 less a $30 rebate. I go to look at the rebate and it's now $50!

$229 for a highly rated 28-70??

PS- I can't find any reference to a Tokina XR. Tamron XR yes but it isn't rated : (

[DonCoon]

DonCoon wrote:
PS- I can't find any reference to a Tokina XR. Tamron XR yes but it isn't rated : (

OK..... TAMRON 28-75 f2.8 LD XR SP

Makes sense now.

Also the Tokina isn't as highly rated as the 8 halo raters reported at PhotoZone. Darn it all : (
Probably worth $229 but I don't need one of these lenses rated high because of a low price. Geeez..

[Jeff Reynolds]

how about the Tamron SP 24-135. Aspherical glass.

Any users out there ?

Jeff

[DonCoon]

Jeff Reynolds wrote:
how about the Tamron SP 24-135. Aspherical glass.

Any users out there ?

Jeff


Good here:
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#Zstd
Ranks 5th out of 48 at 3.51 of 5 maximum. Canon 28-135 rates 11th at 3.25 by comparison.

There are no user ratings listed for it @ PhotoZone.

[Jeff Reynolds]

Was the canon 28-135 an "IS" or consumer grade ?

Thanks for the info on Tamron 24-135 SP. I purchased one off ebay for $360 "buy it now "

Should be here by Friday.

Jeff

[DonCoon]

Jeff Reynolds wrote:
Was the canon 28-135 an "IS" or consumer grade ?

Thanks for the info on Tamron 24-135 SP. I purchased one off ebay for $360 "buy it now "

Should be here by Friday.

Jeff

The 28-135 only comes "IS" ... and USM.

BTW, it runs $351 to $369 new at most on-line retailers -- $368 to $379 shipped.

[DonCoon]

DonCoon wrote:
BTW, it runs $351 to $369 new at most on-line retailers -- $368 to $379 shipped.

These prices are for the Tamron 24-135 not the Canon 28-135. Sorry for any confusion.

[wtlloyd]

Ya, the Canon 28-135 can be had for just about $400 new from a reputable dealer.

The only thing I'm waiting for is a possible 24-70L IS, then I'd happily chuck the 28-135. But for me, currently in that range, I don't need L quality like I need the IS.

All that said, I don't really expect Canon to come out w/ IS on the 24-70 any time soon if ever. But it'd be nice.

[mishkin]

Of course 24-70 is sharper than 28-135 -- if properly focused. There were many issues with 24-70 and 10D combo. I went through four lens copies and they were all focusing past infinity for subjects farther 30ft.

Mishkin

[Jaguar]

The 24-70mm is the best of the Canon family I have used to date and has made my 28-135 redundant. Attached photo from earlier this week shot with 24-70.


http://www.pbase.com/image/23100552

[taojones]

you would want to hope so for the price difference. I have the 28-135 and I find it a very good lens...here is a page with a lot of shots done with it...

http://taojones.fotopic.net/

[John57]

I haven't read all the replies to your question but.....

I have owned both lenses (used with a 10D) and yes, the 24-70 is sharper and has better contrast and colour than the 28-135. That said the 28-135 is a good lens and considerably cheaper.

Comparing pictures is is usually very obvious which has come from the L lens. Try both though as you personally may think the difference is not enough to warrant the much higher price of the L lens.