Highly Disappointed in 28-70 f/2.8"L" quality...

[lawmans3]

I bought a used 28-70 L lens after reading about how 'L' is the way to go. I still don't doubt that, but I also realize there may not be such a large differential between L glass and non-L, but of good quality (ie. regular canon glass). Here is how I have come to my conclusion. I have a canon 28-135 IS lens (A lot of reviews of this lens say it is soft but some good copies are out there, but it's not the norm). I set up my own test, using a tripod and timer to make sure everything would be pretty consistent. I took photos at 28mm f2 (28-70) and 28mm f3.5 (28-135), then compared without doing editing to the image. I was looking strictly at clarity and color. there was a very slight (almost unnoticeable) difference between the two. I did the same thing at 50mm and 70mm. I shot both lenses wide open at their respective apertures with the 28-135 just as sharp EXCEPT at the edges. There was some noticeable difference at the edges, making the L was one step ahead there.



Maybe I was a lucky one and got a very good copy of the 28-135 IS lens and since that seems to be the case I guess I will sell the 28-70 L. I will say my new 70-200 f4 L is very sharp and obviously sharper than my old canon lens. If anyone has any input or similar experience, i would love to hear it!! :)



Some of you may be thinking the L must be broke but it's in really good shape, glass is clean, no brassing and focus is lightning fast and right on.

[mbze430]

Unless you are shooting a FF D/SLR, you won't find much difference in the performance. At best the sharpness is within 2/3 stop. If you are using a 1.6x crop factor camera, the most advantage you are getting is the wide apeture for low light situation.

[eosster]

Maybe posting comparison picture would help...

[lawmans3]

I guess I should have added my camera info, Canon 1ds (full frame sensor).

[lawmans3]

>posting comparision pics?

how and where do i that? thanks..mitch

[poke]

Lawsmans3, I'd be happy to take it off your hands for $50 :)

Wouldn't want a fellow POTN member to be suffering the burden of L glass that they arn't happy with...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[lmelendez]

Unless you are shooting a FF D/SLR, you won't find much difference in the performance.
Wow... I didn't know that!!!

I was saving for the 17-40L... but if that is the case... I rather save my money. I am VERY happy with the quality of the 70-200 L... I just didn't know that you might not notice the difference when using something that is not full frame.

More input here would be greatly appreciated...

Leo.

[mbze430]

Okay, than here is what you should be looking for. Anything in the center is going to be sharp. No point in looking at the center of the picture.

What the L lens provide is the sharpness outside of the sweet spot. The L will give you much better detail in the edge of the frame compared to a regular consumer lens.

[Longwatcher]

Try shooting both lenses at f5.6 or f8 instead of wide open.
f2.8 on the 28-70 is only marginally better then f3.5 on the 28-135, but go to f3.5 on the 28-70 and the quality (sharpness) starts going up immeadiately. The sweet spot on the 28-70L seems to be f5.6 where it beats the 24-70L and competes with the 85/1.8.

The problem with shooting wide open at its widest is you are exposing the glass to all of it's design deficencies. However for pure sharpness they are very close, it is the other factors that make a difference such as color, bokeh, aberations, and auto-focus speed which stand the lenses apart, that and a bit more aperture on the 28-70/2.8L

I have both lenses and I will take the quality of the 28-70L over the 28-135 in all cases except when I am traveling light. The only reason I keep the 28-135 is it is an excellent lens, but more importantly it is way lighter then the 28-70L. So I keep it for backup.

However, if the 28-135 works for you great, keep it and sell the 28-70L. Also you may have a good 28-135 and a bad 28-70L it happens.

BTW: I have used them both with both 10D and 1DsMkII.

[Todd Jacobsen]

Wow... I didn't know that!!!

I was saving for the 17-40L... but if that is the case... I rather save my money. I am VERY happy with the quality of the 70-200 L... I just didn't know that you might not notice the difference when using something that is not full frame.

More input here would be greatly appreciated...

Leo.

Leo,

Canon lenses, other than the "L" line are not crap. But that doesn't mean they can compete, in all scenarios, with the "L" line.

If one were to compare, say a KIT lens, with an "L" series it is possible that both pictures can look close to the same in quality.

If one were to take a series of pictures and AVERAGE out the results of each lens, I would bet the "L" series comes way ahead.

What was not clearly stated was whether or not the picture "test" utilized the obvious "L" difference - apeture range. In addition, was the test (limited as it was) done using tripod or hand held. A series of shots, utilizing both methods should be conducted prior to saying an "L" series provides no added benefit.

[Longwatcher]

Forgot to add a link to my favorite test site

http://wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm

It shows the differences, especially at 28mm. It also shows that at 50mm the 28-135 he used actually out resolved the 28-70L, but had more distortion then the 28-70L.

[Todd Jacobsen]

Oops, I be thinkin you had the 24-70L. Canon stopped producing the 28-70...probably for a reason...

[Jesper]

The difference between "L" and "non-L" is not just in the image quality that the lenses produce. It's just as much in the build quality of the lens itself. L lenses are built for heavy, professional use.

The 28-135 IS has a crappy build quality. It's plastic and it rattles. Many people (including me) have experienced that the 28-135 suffers from "zoom creep" - if you hang the camera around your neck with the lens pointing down, the lens will slowly extend to the 135mm setting.

The build quality of for example the 17-40 is MUCH better than the 28-135. It's (partly) metal, it has a weather seal around the lens mount and just feels much more robust than the 28-135.

If you look at image quality of non-L lenses, there are lenses that produce good images and lenses that produce crappy images. In many reviews, people regard Canon's 28-135 as one of the best non-L zoom lenses. Mine also performs very well, I've never been disappointed by a lack of sharpness of my 28-135.

When you buy an L lens, you can be quite sure that the image quality will be REALLY GOOD through the entire range of focal lengths and apertures. With non-L lenses, there will be certain focal lengths / apertures that will be good, but chances are that for example wide open at the long end the image will be noticeably softer. For example, my 70-300 DO (non-L) isn't terribly sharp at 300mm, f/5.6.

[Andy_T]

If one were to compare, say a KIT lens, with an "L" series it is possible that both pictures can look close to the same in quality.

I remember seeing a comparison dony by CMM (the 100% crops are no longer online, unfortunately) where he compared the 18-55 with the 17-40 and the difference was not so great. Granted, it was there, but it convinced me that I don't need to spend $600 on the 17-40 immediately.

Best regards,
Andy

[CyberDyneSystems]

The 28-70mm can give you f/2.8... and do it looking better than the 28-135mm does at f/5.6...

[lawmans3]

The 28-70mm can give you f/2.8... and do it looking better than the 28-135mm does at f/5.6...

No, much very much. it's a little noticeable at the edges but that's it. i went outside and tried several different shots using the tripod and keeping distance, aperture and focus consistent between the two lenses, but the 28-135 holds its own very well. I guess i should be more impressed with my 28-135 instead of being disappointed in the 28-70 L.:D

[tannoy]

This review is worth a read:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

I used to own the 28-135 and it was a great inexpensive lens. You could not pry my 24-70 out of my fingers for anything-most used lens in my bag.

Cheers,

Darrin

[Tapeman]

I have owned the 28-70L for several years and highly recomend it. It is one of the reasons that I decided to go with zooms over primes. (the other being the 70-200L 2.8 non IS)

[Longwatcher]

No, much very much. it's a little noticeable at the edges but that's it. i went outside and tried several different shots using the tripod and keeping distance, aperture and focus consistent between the two lenses, but the 28-135 holds its own very well. I guess i should be more impressed with my 28-135 instead of being disappointed in the 28-70 L.:D

It sounds like you have a good 28-135 and a bad 28-70;
but the important thing is when you are not analyzing the images, which picture looks more pleasing?

Keep that lens.

[ssim]

Is it possible that the previous owner of this lens didn't treat it with the respect due. I can honestly say this is the first time that I am seeing someone complaining of the quality by this lens.

In my opinion there is a significant difference between Canon's high quality non-L lenses and their L series. I own several of the latter and stand by them 110%. They do have some terrific non-L series lenses but I don't believe that the 28-135 is one of them.

Examples would be terrific. Check out the sticky at the top of the page, it will tell you how to post.

[lawmans3]

I would love to post some pics, but I can't seem to find the ‘sticky’ link to tell me how. is there a website i can post to? the files are about 4 megs each since they are coming from a 1ds. I worry if i downsize them it will change their quality and defeat my purpose of having everyone give me their opinions.

[pradeep1]

When you post a reply, you can upload your images using the "Manage Attachments" button. You to be in advanced editing mode to do that...you can'd do that with quick reply. There is a button the quick reply box below that will take you to advanced mode.

[lawmans3]

When you post a reply, you can upload your images using the "Manage Attachments" button. You to be in advanced editing mode to do that...you can'd do that with quick reply. There is a button the quick reply box below that will take you to advanced mode.

I tried but the file limit is 100k and my files are 4 megs each. i would be happy to downsize them if someone can tell me how without degrading the picture quality.

[Andy_T]

It's not possible to downsize without degrading picture quality.

Best to make a 100% crop ... select an area where the difference should be obvious (e.g. newsprint shot, one area from the center and one from the corner) and crop it in PS.

Best regards,
Andy

[johneric8]

I have to admit that I think that it's truly kind of frighting how much importance everyone is putting in L lenses. I konw they are great! I've been around lots of incredible photographers and they have taken pics with lenses most of you wouldnt be caught dead with that would blow you away. I have taken shots at weddings with a kit lens that are better then my buddie with top of the line L lenses. I've taken pics that appear sharper then some L lenses by just knowing what i'm doing. I would love to own every L lens created but c-mon, there is much more to taking great pictures then the lens. Yes, I know it matters but lets quit with the obsession.
Seriously, some of the greatest photos ever taken are done without any fancy lenses or equipment. learn how to get the most out of what you got! After you do that, then talk L. If you can afford it then by all means get them all and have fun.

[eosster]

I have to admit that I think that it's truly kind of frighting how much importance everyone is putting in L lenses. I konw they are great! I've been around lots of incredible photographers and they have taken pics with lenses most of you wouldnt be caught dead with that would blow you away. I have taken shots at weddings with a kit lens that are better then my buddie with top of the line L lenses. I've taken pics that appear sharper then some L lenses by just knowing what i'm doing. I would love to own every L lens created but c-mon, there is much more to taking great pictures then the lens. Yes, I know it matters but lets quit with the obsession.
Seriously, some of the greatest photos ever taken are done without any fancy lenses or equipment. learn how to get the most out of what you got! After you do that, then talk L. If you can afford it then by all means get them all and have fun.

Why didn't you tell me this before I bought my L's, lol. I agree in your statement about using your gear correctly, but I hate to keep upgrading to different lens. So, I've decided to start with right gear with careful selection for me(JUST ME and OPINION). I've started with Nikon and cost me more money upgrading to different lens.

[poke]

I agree with most of what you say... but don't forget that photography is not all about taking photos. Many people use it as a hobby in the same way that people do Golf etc... having the best of something and talking to your mates about it is sometimes half of what occupies peoples time in that hobby. The gear collection is just as much a part of it as the resulting product. I'm not saying that its right or wrong, just thats thats the way it is.

For the people that photography is all about the photo... then your absolutely right!!!

[kawter2]

I have to admit that I think that it's truly kind of frighting how much importance everyone is putting in L lenses. I konw they are great! I've been around lots of incredible photographers and they have taken pics with lenses most of you wouldnt be caught dead with that would blow you away. I have taken shots at weddings with a kit lens that are better then my buddie with top of the line L lenses. I've taken pics that appear sharper then some L lenses by just knowing what i'm doing. I would love to own every L lens created but c-mon, there is much more to taking great pictures then the lens. Yes, I know it matters but lets quit with the obsession.
Seriously, some of the greatest photos ever taken are done without any fancy lenses or equipment. learn how to get the most out of what you got! After you do that, then talk L. If you can afford it then by all means get them all and have fun.

If you bought a 1Ds would you put (if you could) an 18-55mm on it? Would you nitpick if it werent SCEAMIN sharp and full of great contrast?

[johneric8]

Why didn't you tell me this before I bought my L's, lol. I agree in your statement about using your gear correctly, but I hate to keep upgrading to different lens. So, I've decided to start with right gear with careful selection for me(JUST ME and OPINION). I've started with Nikon and cost me more money upgrading to different lens.


I'm not an expert photgrapher that is for sure. But, I have learned allot by watching some great ones. As much as I love this forum sometimes I really believe that it caters to gear heads and not true picture takers. It's okay if thats your passion but to me there are too many comments on this forum that make people think they need to drop $1000 on L lenses to get superior pictures and that just not the case.

[eosster]

I'm not an expert photgrapher that is for sure. But, I have learned allot by watching some great ones. As much as I love this forum sometimes I really believe that it caters to gear heads and not true picture takers. It's okay if thats your passion but to me there are too many comments on this forum that make people think they need to drop $1000 on L lenses to get superior pictures and that just not the case.

I am not suggesting anyone to start buying L's, just that I've learned from my own mistake with constant upgrade. Also, I think and for sure I know, this is gear forum and people are going to share their idea, like you and me. It's up to the person, how he or she takes this information and apply it to their needs.

[johneric8]

I am not suggesting anyone to start buying L's, just that I've learned from my own mistake with constant upgrade. Also, I think and for sure I know, this is gear forum and people are going to share their idea, like you and me. It's up to the person, how he or she takes this information and apply it to their needs.

Dont get me wrong, I love that this is a gear forum because it has helped me tons when getting things I need. My only point was that it's important to encourage newbies to learn how to use what they got before spending money on something they really arent ready for. As I said before, if you have the money then by all means go for it. I'm all for having the fastest sharpest glass that the world has to offer. I have shot with L lenses and love them. I was going to purchase a couple until I realized I could get by with what I had for a while upon reviews of the pictures I had seen taken with them. To me, it's a luxury to have them, not a neccessity.

[lawmans3]

Well, I sold the 28-70 L and bought a new 24-70 L. I see what everyone’s talking about now. This new lens is like "WOW!” The difference is completely noticeable, even wide open. I must have had a bad copy of the 28-70?? Regardless, my new lens rocks! Thanks to everyone for your input!

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'm glad this one worked out,.. :)

You truly must have had a "bad" 28-70mm :( as I find mine to be very good indeed. I'd still ove a 24-70mm though!

[Ray.Petri]

For my 20D I found a used 28-70 Macro 3.5-4.5 Mk2 in a small camera shop - I gave £65 for it - it outperforms my kit lens on any shot - even the colours seem to have a higher degree of saturation. I have not seen this lens listed so I geuss it must be obsolete. I wonder why?

Ray

[MediaMagic]

... My only point was that it's important to encourage newbies to learn how to use what they got before spending money on something they really arent ready for...

Nail... Head... Hammer.... WHACK!

[malla1962]

I remember seeing a comparison dony by CMM (the 100% crops are no longer online, unfortunately) where he compared the 18-55 with the 17-40 and the difference was not so great. Granted, it was there, but it convinced me that I don't need to spend $600 on the 17-40 immediately.

Best regards,
Andyi sold my kit lens and got the 17-40 and glad i did.i am not saying that the kit lens is junk or anything,it is verry good value but the build quality is poor.when i tested it against my 28-135 it was clear that the 17-40 was better in every aspect.