Canon 28-135 IS VS Canon 24-105 mm F4L IS

[sebmour]

Just wondering which would be best walkaround lens for shooting in street in sharpness, contrast, colors, focus, distortion...

I looked at the lens samples and they both seem to make very good pictures. One is slower and cheaper in cost. One is faster but alot more expensive. I usually shoot a around f5.6-f.63 on the street so the th F/stop is not a major role in my case.

Thank you for your time and input.

[canoflan]

I have the 24-105. No question, it is better. I have never read a mixed review on an L lens, but the 28-135 I have seen discussions both great and mediocre.

Please get the 24-105, you will not be disappointed.;)

[Stan43]

I only have used the 24-105L but I love it. Build quality, IQ, resale value, colors all probably exceed the 28-135. If it's in your budget I would certainly recommend the 24-105.

[coreypolis]

24-105 hands down.

the 28-135 is the worst lens I've used to date. Others have it and do great with it, like my own father.

[ScruffyJohn]

I have both. I just got the 24-105L 1.5 weeks ago.... I'll be keeping it...
Normally I don't make recommendations (I am no expert in any sense), but I thought I'd try to save you some money.

If you can afford the 24-105L, that's the one.....

I've compared the 24-105L to the 28-135 and the 10-22mm.
The 24-105L at 24 mm is slightly better than the 10-22mm at 22. Since I've been told (in these forums) that the 10-22mm is basically an L lens, this is good.
The 24-105L is better than the 28-135, but not on the scale of 100% better, just better.
Now without a doubt the 24-105L brings in the colors better than the 28-135.
The 24-105L focuses faster, I have yet to see it "hunt".

I do miss is the extra reach from 105 to 135... but I'll live with out it.

I also compared it with the 70-200L at same ranges and settings. Basically the same results...

so bottom line, if you can afford it, don't make the mistake I did (but that's all I could afford back then). You'll save money in the long run.
I plan on having the 24-105L on the camera 70% of the time, with the 10-22 the rest.

[jestergx4]

Please dont even mention the 24-105L AND the 24-135 on the same sentence. 24-105L hands down, a winner!!

[Knightshade]

I've never used the 24-105, although it is ultimately on my list of lenses to have. My 28-135 is razor sharp and I had a friend comment on it's "near" L quality after using it.

[pturton]

My 28-135 IS is definitely not in the same league as any of my L glass. It is just acceptable if stopped down to f/8 which makes it nearly useless to me. Even my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 put my 28-135 to shame.

The colour, colour contrast and sharpness are really lacking.

[jcpoulin]

I started with the 28-135....sold it within a month. I found it to be soft and slow(focusing). Hunted a fair amount as well. I now have the 24-105...love it. If money is not large factor, would definately go with the 24-105L. Build is much better.

[cgratti]

Your comparing apples and oranges here. One lens is twice the value of the other, in turn it "should" be better optically. If you have the money for the L, then get it. If not then get the 28-135, which by the way is a nice piece of glass. I owned one and used it a lot. Sold it for some L glass.

[Billginthekeys]

the 24-105 is definitly the hands down winner. if you can afford it it beats the 28-135 in every way.

[superdiver]

I only have the 24-105 and I will NOT be sending it back in...I really like that lens...

[Stime187]

Even my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 put my 28-135 to shame.

The colour, colour contrast and sharpness are really lacking.

What do you mean "even my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 put my 28-135 to shame"... OF COURSE they put it to shame, they're fast primes, if they didn't put it to shame then there would be a problem.

As for the original question, if you can afford the 24-105, go for it. If you're a beginner like I was when I got the 28-135 then by all means don't bother with the L glass just yet. Buy another lens with you're savings and learn before stepping up to it. I've taken a lot of good shots with the 28-135, its a great walk-around lens to learn with.

- Scott

[jestergx4]

I started with the 28-135....sold it within a month. I found it to be soft and slow(focusing). Hunted a fair amount as well. I now have the 24-105...love it. If money is not large factor, would definately go with the 24-105L. Build is much better.


haha. I am like you mang! But I returned mine to Amazon just a day shy of their return policy limit.

[gjman]

.......I looked at the lens samples and they both seem to make very good pictures. One is slower and cheaper in cost. One is faster but alot more expensive.

Faster + Expensive => High quality => Good image quality. Given that you already have an impressive L lineup I am assuming that you can probably afford the 24-105L IS and you will be disappointed with the image quality of even a great copy of the 28-135 IS. You really cant compare the two lenses.

You need to compare the Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM with the EF 28-105 II USM or Sigma 28-105/28-135/24-135 or the Tamron 24-135.

[tim1960]

I have the 28-135. I've had good luck with it and have taken some great shots. However, if I could go back and do it all over, I would go with the 24-105L. Although I haven't used one, I've seen shots taken with it and it's a great lens. If you can afford the L lenses, go for it.

Tim

[squashed]

I hate threads like this. I asked for a 28-135 from "santa". Now everybody is baggin on it.:(

Im sure to a beginner like myself,it should do fine.:)

[pturton]

What do you mean "even my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 put my 28-135 to shame"... OF COURSE they put it to shame, they're fast primes, if they didn't put it to shame then there would be a problem.

- Scott

Scott,

I should have specified that these primes have much better colour and contrast. The 28-135 IS produces muddy colours compared to any of my other lenses. But even wide open these primes give crisper looking images.

[AdamJL]

Don't now your new lens mate - my dad has it and it's a great piece of work. Great focal range for a walkabout/travel lens so it's ideal if you want to go overseas and are worried about taking expensive L gear with you.
And don't forget, the lens just caputre the picture that you take - it's all down to you! :)

[johnstoy]

I've never used the 24-105, although it is ultimately on my list of lenses to have. My 28-135 is razor sharp and I had a friend comment on it's "near" L quality after using it.

Mine too...and I have some very good L glass to compare it too...

My 28-135 IS is definitely not in the same league as any of my L glass. It is just acceptable if stopped down to f/8 which makes it nearly useless to me. Even my 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 put my 28-135 to shame.
The colour, colour contrast and sharpness are really lacking.

My primes, (50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 ) are just slightly better than the 28-135 IS...My 2.8 L glass is better...

I hate threads like this. I asked for a 28-135 from "santa". Now everybody is baggin on it.:(
Im sure to a beginner like myself,it should do fine.:)

Hi Gary,
It's an investment...and is a reasonable one...I have yet to complain about my 28-135 IS...and I have faster primes and faster 2.8 L glass...but the 28-135mm is a great walk around lens with IS...It's certainly worth the $400, for the features and IS...
If it isn't urgent save, save, save, $3000.00 and buy two 2.8 "L" lenses...Or buy several primes...Go figure...I'd go with the 28-135mm IS...(It does almost everything, except low indoor light action shots...)
John

[squashed]

Thank you John, im still looking forward to it. Maybe Santa has done some research and discovered the "L":) :)

[Stime187]

I hate threads like this. I asked for a 28-135 from "santa". Now everybody is baggin on it.:(

Im sure to a beginner like myself,it should do fine.:)

Trust me, you'll love it. The majority of the shots on my website (see signature) were taken with the 28-135 as that was my walk around/landscape lens until I recently picked up the Sigma 17-70.

Great images can be made with it, it just isn't quite as good as the L quality glass. If you're a beginner, there's no reason to buy L glass until you can actually get something out of it.

I'm sure you're going to love it, don't let threads like this you get you down on it.

- Scott

[steve_shelly]

I don't think there is a 'real' comparison, the 28-135 is a consumer marketed lens and the 24-105 is an "L". If the OP is curious as to whether or not the 28-135 is a good purchase and/or investment, then I say yes. I had one for about a year and it was a fantastic lens, I never had a print that I looked at and thought, wow that's soft or flat. Any one that looked at images from it thought they were fantastic and didn't care or know what gear was used to take it.
Are you going to get shots of your kids at a school play without a flash, maybe, but doubt it. This lens was always great as a walk around, school plays or sports are imho specialty situations that require specialty lens'

If you can afford the 24-105l then I'm sure you will enjoy it equally well, but I don't think you can really "compare" the two lens'

just my thoughts

[Knightshade]

I hate threads like this. I asked for a 28-135 from "santa". Now everybody is baggin on it.:(

Im sure to a beginner like myself,it should do fine.:)

I think you'll like the lens just fine. It's currently my walk around lens. Are there things that I'm not crazy about w/it? Yes.

I do wish it was quicker, it does hunt sometimes in low light situations.

I wouldn't have that problem if it was quicker, but I would also have less money in my bank account and I wouldn't be able to even look at the 300mm f/4 IS lens I've been considering.

I figure it like this. If I can figure my way around the "limitations" of the lens, it's ultimately going to make me a better photographer in the long run. Is that true or not, I don't know, ask me in a couple years.

[squashed]

Thats encouraging !!

Scott, Beautiful shots on your website.

[Woolburr]

I hate threads like this. I asked for a 28-135 from "santa". Now everybody is baggin on it.:(

Im sure to a beginner like myself,it should do fine.:)

I have both the 28-135 and the 24-105....I didn't get rid of my 28-135...it has a better range for an all-purpose lens than the 24-105 and it is nearly as sharp. I don't think you will regret your gift unless you get a horrible copy.

[baboymo]

Both lenses are great but in my opinion serve different purposes.

My 28-135 is my "tourist" and all-purpose walkaround lens. My 24-105 is my portrait and medium-lighting lens even though I'm finding it on my body almost 80% of the time.

The IS on the 28-135 is significantly noisier than the 24-105.

[cjm]

Fro get about resale value and all the nonsense since most of us buy a lens to keep not "invest our money in".

The 28-135 IS was a OK lens for me. BUT after about 105 on the lens it started to get rather soft and 135mm was a 50/50 gamble for me if it would be soft or not.

The 24-105 on the other hand, although I have never used it from what I have seen has no problems in the sharp scene and the optics of the lens produces far better results.

Think of it this way. I bought a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 lens awhile back, then I bought a 24-70 L and thought I was nuts for paying an exta $900 for basically the same lens. When I got the results from the 24-70 L was totally worth the extra cost. Yes the L lens is a lot more money but if you look at it like how I am looking at it now, divide the cost over say 3-4 years the Canon L is so affordable and high valued.

So if you buy the 28-135 IS you might be just buying the24-105 L eventually anyways because you will want superior optical quality.

Not that the 28-135 IS isnt a bad lens, its just an average lens.

[dave_bass5]

My old 28-105USM MKII was better than a 28-135IS i got. i only kept it for two days and sent it back and got a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 much, much better.
Now i have a 24-105L and it is indeed better than the 28-135IS but only slightly better than the 28-105USM IQ wise MKII IMHO. Of course there are other factors involved as well.
CJM, you hit the nail on the head. the 24-105L was the lens i always wanted but i had to go the cheaper route to start with but by the time i got the 24-105L i had lost quite a bit selling len's. Should have just gone for the 24-105L in the first place.