Canon 28-70mm f2.8 L USM vs. Canon 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 USM IS

[MPG Photography]

I need to figure out what my next lens to buy should be...

I just picked up my DRebel a few weeks ago and I am really new to SLR photography.

So far I have the "Kit" 18-55mm lens and the 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM IS lens.

I'm looking for something to "bridge the gap" between those two...

Granted the 28-70mm is going to run me twice the price of the not "L" glass...I am seeing the 28-135mm running around $350 used and the 28-70mm running around $700-$800 used.

Anyone have any real world experience with these two lenes that can steer me in the right direction...

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 28-135mm is a great lens at the price.. but the 28-70mm L blows it away! :)

[jyrgen]

There is no gap actually that needs to be bridged. Try it yourself. 55 and 75 are close enough not worth bridging just for bridging. I'd rather "bridge" it with 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 for low-light situations and portraits.

[Persian-Rice]

Every consider the 24-70?
Most people I see tend to take the 24 over the 28. more rage and a tad cheaper, same quality.

BTW, there is no point comparing an "L" lens to anything else, the "L" will always win by a huge margin

[karusel]

...unless compared stopped down, as we have learned in a thread from a while ago. 8)

[Tom W]

Every consider the 24-70?
Most people I see tend to take the 24 over the 28. more rage and a tad cheaper, same quality.

BTW, there is no point comparing an "L" lens to anything else, the "L" will always win by a huge margin

Actually, the used 28-70L is usually a bit cheaper than a 24-70L. But, I do find the 24 end to be more useful. If it wasn't there, I'd not have bought the lens.

[Belmondo]

I was recently in the Ritz Camera store in Reno, Nevada. They still have a new-in-box 28-70L sitting on their shelf. I though maybe I could get a deal on it, but they wanted full retail price (around $1200 as I recall). When I pointed out that the lens was out of production and I could buy the superior replacement for less money, the young man behind the counter responded with a shrug.

Maybe if I'd tried harder or insisted on talking to the managr, I could hav done better, but I wasn't in the mood. Maybe one of you would want to take a run at them.

[Tom W]

I was recently in the Ritz Camera store in Reno, Nevada. They still have a new-in-box 28-70L sitting on their shelf. I though maybe I could get a deal on it, but they wanted full retail price (around $1200 as I recall). When I pointed out that the lens was out of production and I could buy the superior replacement for less money, the young man behind the counter responded with a shrug.

Maybe if I'd tried harder or insisted on talking to the managr, I could hav done better, but I wasn't in the mood. Maybe one of you would want to take a run at them.

Maybe you ought to rip the B&H ad out of the latest issue of Pop Photo and tape it to the front door of their store. ;)

[msvadi]

There is no gap actually that needs to be bridged. Try it yourself. 55 and 75 are close enough not worth bridging just for bridging. I'd rather "bridge" it with 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/1.8 for low-light situations and portraits.

I guess it's not just the gap, but the fact that the kit lens has f/5.6 at the long end.
I know I talk too much about that lens, but Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is definitely worth consideration. It received excellent reviews and it's only $330.

[MPG Photography]

Thanks for the input...

I'm just trying to find a "walk-around" lens. I want something that will work well for a broad range of subjects. I have a feeling my kit lense won't get much use and my 75-300 is a bit too much for a "walk-around". I guess I just need to decide whether I should spend $350ish on the 28-135mm and enjoy the extra length or bite the bullet and pick up the 28-70mm for $800ish and enjoy the better quality.

My whole thing is that I'm EXTREMLY new to SLR photography and to tell the truth photography in general so I'm not sure if I would even be able to take advantage of the difference between the glass.

I also was thinking that the IS would be benificial to me being a 'noob" and all....ie, can't hold still. :D

[cc10d]

Matt said, I'm just trying to find a "walk-around" lens.

For starters, the 28 135 IS is not that bad. It is probably one of the better non-L zooms. I have taken many satisfactory pictures with it.

I had the 24 - 70 L for a week and during my testing during that week I found that the auto focus was not all that accurate in low light situations on my 10D. I think that is a combinatiion of it and my 10D. Manual focus was good. But I had to stop down to f4 or more to get dependable autofocus and I thought I may as well take it back as the 28-135 works at that arperature. Not quite as sharp but for the bucks? At the time I used the money for my wife a drebel. Many really like the 24-70 and I may someday get one, but for now I have upgraded some of the tele lenses to L class instead. Chuck

[CyberDyneSystems]

Matt.. if you don't have an "L" yet I say definately BITE THE BULLET!

Besides.. if you look hard enough.. (like NOT on E-bay) you can find a 28-70mm f/2.8 L used for more like $600.00.. that's what I paid for mine.. check out the Buy and Sell forum and Fredmiranda.com daily :)

[ShootTechPan]

My 24-70mm f/2.8L also has serious focusing issues (on 4 different bodies) at the longer end for distances between six and twenty feet. When it is in focus, it's very sharp, and I can't distinguish pictures taken with it and the 50 f/1.4 at similar apertures. Canon's lack of quality control means that you should make sure the place you buy it from lets you do exchanges/refunds or at least several test shots. Shooting focus tests is unfortunately a necessity when you first buy a Canon lens or body.

That said, as someone mentioned before, if you shoot stopped down, you won't see much of a difference between your choices. The 28-135mm is a good lens, especially if you're not needing much wide-angle action, and its weight and length certainly is better than the 24-70mm (and 28-70mm 2.8L) for a walkaround lens. The lack of any wide angle view, however, makes it a non-option for me.

Range-wise, the kit lens is ok, but suffers from purple fringing (some call it chromatic abberation, but it's not). The only lens I've used that's worse in terms of purple fringing is the 75-300mm. The Tamron 28-75mm is a great size and price for what you get. No wide angle either, though.

[yuenslhk]

I think in mu opinion, if you use EF 28-70mm F2.8L, overall quality is better than the EF 28-135mm, but if you use F2.8, you will obviously see a drop off in quality.

EF 28-135mm give you many opportunity to shot , even at 1/4s and 1/8s with IS functions , you still get a clear picture , but corner preformence is worse as compare to EF 28-70mm F2.8L.


YUEN

[nosquare2003]

BTW, there is no point comparing an "L" lens to anything else, the "L" will always win by a huge margin

Except non L primes.

I agree with cc10d that 28-135 is a good starter lens -- especially for a walk-around lens.

[MPG Photography]

Thanks again for the input guys/gals... :D

I think I'm going to just pick up the 28-135mm IS for now. I can get one for about $350 (under half the price of the 28-70mm) and then I'll save up to get the 24-70 L later once I learn how to use everything.

I'll eventually plan on replacing this 28-135mm IS & my 75-300mm IS with the 24-70mm L, 70-200mm L, and some TCs. Then once I can prove to the wifey that I'm serious about this (photography) I'll be able to pick up a 300mm or 400mm L prime for my motorsports events.

How's that plan sound? 8)

[FrenchAmateur]

It sounds nice, but do not concentrate that much on the equipment...
Start making pictures and pictures and pictures... lens inflation is not necessary.
Your 28-135 is an excellent lens, use it. Try to close one stop from the wide aperture in order to have the best quality if the light allows it.
At a later stage, for what you are mentioning in the future, the 100-400 could be an option.

[larrysch]

I think I'm going to just pick up the 28-135mm IS for now. I can get one for about $350
MPG - Check the http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14 here at this site -

[That_Fox]

MPG - Check the http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=14 here at this site - new ones are selling for $250 - NEW - that could save you $100 bucks (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=842070)

This thread is from 2004, I would hope they've made their decision by now :lol:

[Adam Jones]

This thread is from 2004, I would hope they've made their decision by now :lol:

:lol:

[larrysch]

LOL guess I missed that.......:oops:

[n0w0rries]

LOL... at first I thought (hey I got a 28-135 IS for sale!) but then saw it was from 2004!

[Tanglefoot47]

I have owned the 28-135 adn I found it to be an excellent lens for the money (FM and here for $225) but no way can it comapre to the 28-70. I have never owned one but several 24-70 and many people say the 28-70 is a little better image wise than the 24-70

[mansalim]

why are we replying to 6 years old thread? haha
the OP already got 24-70L and 70-200 f2.8L among other lens..
hahahah