28-105/28-135/24-105 comparison

[MarkT8]

Hello,

Here’s a thing. I have been using a EF 28-105 USM lens for the last 12 years now and it is constantly attached to my 30D as my walkaround lens. What I like best about it is that it is small, light weight and good quality.

However, I am looking for a similar lens that will have the same characteristics but give me even better quality. I noticed that some lenses offer IS and I am not sure if I need that feature.

I have spend days researching articles and reviews on the internet and I am still none the wiser.

I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses:-

28-105 USM MKII
But I am not sure if changing from the MKI to the MK II will give me anything.

28-135 IS USM
But I have seen some mixed reviews especially concerning lens build quality.

24-105 IS USM L
Speaks for itself, but is it quite big and heavy.

Has anyone here had a similar dilemma and has anyone here got experience of one or all of these lenses?

Your comments will be highly appreciated.

MarkT8

[thewavebb]

if you have the coin...without a doubt, go with the 24-105 IS. I love this lens as my general walk around lens. I have the 28-105 3.4-4. as well and its a fine lens for what it is, but the 24-105L is just fantastic. (its really not to big and heavy when it comes to pro lenses)

[mrcoons]

I have all three lenses and with out a doubt the 24-105L is the winner. You'll never regret it. It is seldom off the camera, the 28-135 is now used by my wife (when she takes pictures which is seldom).

[dignacio]

Another vote goes to the 24-105L. I use to own the 28-135 and it's also a wonderful lens. There are times when I wish I had that extra reach. If it fits your budget go with the 24-105L.

[Familiaphoto]

I have the 28-135 IS and it is a good lens, but the 24-105L is a great lens. That is why I will probably get it one day. If you can afford it go with the 24-105L now.

[fteter]

I have the 28-105 II, but had the chance to shoot with a friend's 24-105 L last week. Now that I've seen the difference in color richness and sharpness, I'm saving my pennies for the L.

[darktiger]

I vote for the 24-105. Well worth it...

[MarkT8]

Thank you all for your replies. Looks like the 24-105 is the leader. I am still a little concerned over the size and weight compared to the 28-105.
I must visit a local dealer and handle the lenses. I will know for sure then.

Regards,

MarkT8

[AdamJL]

It's not that big or heavy.. I use it on both my cameras as a walkabout.

[Permagrin]

Thank you all for your replies. Looks like the 24-105 is the leader. I am still a little concerned over the size and weight compared to the 28-105.
I must visit a local dealer and handle the lenses. I will know for sure then.

Regards,

MarkT8

the 24-105 is my main walk around lens and has been for a couple of years. That being said, it's quite a bit heavier that the 28-105 MkII. Do I think it's too heavy for a walk around lens though...no. But there is a considerable difference btw. the two lenses (1.5lbs vs. .82lbs)...the IQ on the 24-105 though, makes it all worthwhile! IMO :)

[MarkT8]

Does anyone here have a picture of all three of these lenses together so that I can see the difference in size. Or can someone who has all three lenses take a picture of the lenses together so that I can see the difference in size.

Regards,

MarkT8

[deanedward]

another vote for the 24-105.

before i was saving up for a 28-135 but when i started reading reviews and started seeing sample photos of the 24-105, i saved up for the L instead and now i'm happy with it. it was a toss up between the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-105 f4 IS for me but settled for the 24-105 due to the difference in size, price and additional focal length.

[casaaviocar]

I have owned all three lenses. I still own the 24-105.
I don't have the other two anymore so a comparison shot isn't possible. Check THIS SITE (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/standard_zoom.html) for the specs.
Unless you have a physical problem, I wouldn't be concerned with the size and weight, IQ is the driving factor.

[condyk]

I have also owned all three. I would dismiss the 28-135mm IS as it's an old IS and the IQ is average ... hardly an upgrade IMO. The Mk Ii is an excellent option and while it may be better than the mk I you may be disappointed at the small improvements. The 24-105mm IS L is a great walkaround. very good indeed. You will see a clear difference and appreciate the modern IS capabilities. Size and weight are not an issue, unlike the 24-70mm 2.8.

[Plex306]

When i bought my 40d it came with the 28-135 IS USM. I found this lens as a "walk around lens". Its not bad and i still shot it with it. But if i had a choice i take 24-105 IS USM L over the 28-135.

[SuzyView]

I also have owned the 28-105, and 28-135 and now have the 24-70 on my 5D almost all the time. I gave up the 24-105L idea since I shoot a lot indoors and I don't like to use flash, but I have worked with other photographers who swear by that L lens, and I believe them.

The 28-135 was a good work lens for me for about a year. I thought I'd try the 17-40 as my first L and the difference was dramatic. I never used the 28-135 again, gave it to my son to use at college. The 28-105 I used with my old Rebel G was very sharp, and I just gave that up to my friend with my old 20D.

If you are wanting better images and want to try out one of the more expensive L lenses, do it! Especially if you can afford it. The quality, build and performance of the L lenses are worth the money to me, but for the casual photographer, it is a definite bite on the budget. You will see a difference, IMO (don't flame me) from the first shot. I almost cried when I saw the first shots from my 17-40.

[Perry Ge]

I have the 28-105 3.5-4.5 II. Absolute bargain for the price, though I never use it. Not as good as the Ls but for the money, it's hard to beat.

And Suzy, nobody's gonna flame you for crying over L quality :lol:. My MKIIN makes me shriek like a little girl because of how little shutter lag there is compared to my 5D.

[SuzyView]

And Suzy, nobody's gonna flame you for crying over L quality :lol:. My MKIIN makes me shriek like a little girl because of how little shutter lag there is compared to my 5D.

I have no doubt I'm missing something for sports with just my 40D, but I am so looking forward to getting the new 5DII in a few months. :) I always love a good time of anticipation. I've never been disappointed with anything I've purchased for my camera gear. :) Oh, well, there was that one time . . . . :o

[Perry Ge]

I have no doubt I'm missing something for sports with just my 40D, but I am so looking forward to getting the new 5DII in a few months. :) I always love a good time of anticipation. I've never been disappointed with anything I've purchased for my camera gear. :) Oh, well, there was that one time . . . . :o

:eek: What are you referring to? I must've missed it. :)

*opens a new tab to _aravena's thread*

[msowsun]

Do you have the EF 28-105mm 4-5.6 USM or the EF 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 USM?

The EF 28-105mm 4-5.6 USM is not a very good lens, so almost anything would be an upgrade.

There are 3 different versions of the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 All are good, but some just a little better.

The first version had a 5 blade aperture and a "flower" symbol for the macro setting.

The second version had a 7 blade aperture and the word "Macro" for the macro setting.

The third version is the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 II and it also has a 7 blade aperture and the word "Macro" for the macro setting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EF_28-105mm_lens

You can compare them all here:

http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/lens-lookup.pl?lens1=EF+28-105mm+f3.5-4.5+USM&lens2=EF+28-105mm+f3.5-4.5+II+USM&lens3=EF+28-105mm+f4-5.6+USM&lens4=*&lens5=*

[Perry Ge]

Definitely the third version of the 3.5-4.5, and it's a good one. Canon's stopped making the piece of crap that is the 4-5.6, thankfully.

[SBPhoto]

If you want superior quality, color and sharpness then the 24-105L is the lens to buy.
I have used all 3, the 28-105 was just average in terms of 1Q. The 28-135IS was a lot better but nowhere near the 24-105L. I don't see size and weight as an issue

[barno]

I'm weighing the same options and will probably move to a 24-105L later in the year but the 28-135mm has been very good to me. There's a ton floating around here and eBay and can score a 28-135mm for $225-$275 which in my opinion is a pretty smoking deal.

[thomasro3]

My vote goes to the 24-105L for 90% of the time.

[UK_Terry]

I have the 28 - 135
absolute fantastic lense, done many weddings just with the one lense.

i would like to try the 24 - 105L sometime to see if it is as good as they say.

[MarkT8]

I forgot all about this post. Here is an update.

I bought the 24 - 105 L lens which had been split up from an EOS 5D deal and I managed to save about £100. The lens itself is quite a lot bigger than the 28 – 105 and the barrel diameter is quite a lot larger. I have to say that the lens is brilliant and worth every penny. I have got used to the difference in size and weight and now it stays on my camera all of the time.

The quality of the images are quite staggering and the IS is really useful in low light conditions. Especially considering that I am not a fan of flash photography (apart from fill-in flash that is). However, when I do use the pop-up flash the barrel causes a shadow at the bottom of the image. The shadow is mainly due to the lens hood and can be reduced when the lens hood has been removed.

I took a studio lit family portrait using the lens and got it enlarged to 18” x 12” and you could see every hair on the faces of the people.

How much do I like this lens…………….I would rather chop my right arm off than lose this lens.

MarkT8

[thomasro3]

I forgot all about this post. Here is an update.

I bought the 24 - 105 L lens which had been split up from an EOS 5D deal and I managed to save about £100. The lens itself is quite a lot bigger than the 28 – 105 and the barrel diameter is quite a lot larger. I have to say that the lens is brilliant and worth every penny. I have got used to the difference in size and weight and now it stays on my camera all of the time.

The quality of the images are quite staggering and the IS is really useful in low light conditions. Especially considering that I am not a fan of flash photography (apart from fill-in flash that is). However, when I do use the pop-up flash the barrel causes a shadow at the bottom of the image. The shadow is mainly due to the lens hood and can be reduced when the lens hood has been removed.

I took a studio lit family portrait using the lens and got it enlarged to 18” x 12” and you could see every hair on the faces of the people.

How much do I like this lens…………….I would rather chop my right arm off than lose this lens.

MarkT8

Ha! Ladies and Gentleman we have a winner! I guess the next question will be is What should I purchase for my next lens? Congrats! I'm glad you have something you love and works for you.