24-70L to replace 28-135IS...good move?

[V6GTO]

My 28-135 IS has broken for the second time, and has never been a "sharp" lens. Is the 24-70 L f2.8 the most logical replacement/upgrade? Or have I missed another lens?

Martin.

[cactusclay]

I may or may not be the best person to ask that question to. I have not had a good experience with the 24-70, but pehaps, my expectations have been too high. I would try one out in a store first.

[Belmondo]

Oh yeah.

What the 24-70 loses in range next to the 28-135, it more than makes up for in sharpness. You'll be able to make up for a lot of that missing focal lenght by cropping, if ncecessary. Your pictures will likely be that much sharper.

[CyberDyneSystems]

YES! :)

[ggibbs1971]

The "L" lens is always a great replacement lens. However you can get the Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a lot less $$$. I paid $310 for mine last month on www.fredmiranda.com. The sharpeness is close to the "L". I really like mine, especially indoors.

Geoff

[cc10d]

I did not have a good feeling with the two copies of 24-70 that I trired. Both seemed soft for an L lens. I returned them both. I ended up getting the Tamron 28-75 f 2.8 XR DI more letters I don't remember. It seems as sharp or sharper as the 24-70s I had. Not near the expense, not quite the build quality but very adequate. The 24-70s that I had were very sharp 5.6 -smaller arpuratures. But the 28-135 isn't bad at f8-11 either. So I chose not to spend that much for what seemed less sharpnes than I expect from L lens. I enjoy my 16-35 f2.8 L, and would have expected the 24-70 to be better. I know its not appropriate to expect the 24-70 to be as sharp as my tele L's. But I did think it would show up the 16-35, and mine did not seem to until f5.6 so I have one non-canon lens. Surprized me! Must be the lens I had tried out were from a lot that were at the edge of specs or something, because I have seen very nice pictures taken with 24-70 2.8 L lenses. If I get enough extra cash again, I wonder if it would pay to try for another one...

[condyk]

When I was looking to replace my 28-135 IS I concluded that the Tamron mentioned above and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 were the ones worth a second look. I couldn't afford to spend the money on the Canon L and user reviews quite variable too, even more so than the Tamron and Sigma, both of which also have their fans and critics!!

Depends on your budget. If you buy new and can exchange if you don't like your copy then the L's got to be worth a punt judging from the favourable comments I've seen. If you're keen to try something a bit cheaper then I'd go for either of the others ... in the end I went for a Tamron, for somewhat illogical reasons!!

[ssim]

I have no qualms recommending the 24-70. This lens would/should outshine the 28-135. I've always found it odd that a lens with a focal length of 135.

[Jesper]

The 24-70 f/2.8 L is undoubtedly a great lens, but note that it is MUCH bigger and MUCH heavier (950g vs. 540g) than the 28-135.

There are so many people raving about the sharpness and image quality of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 (http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/2875mm.asp), I would consider that one a more direct competitor to the Canon 28-135 than the 24-70 L. But note, in a lot of reviews about the Tamron lens, I've read that some people seem to get a bad copy at first and they go back to have it replaced or adjusted (see here (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=187&sort=7&cat=43&page=1), for example).

[eosster]

Some say it's ultimate lens from upstair, LOL.

[pradeep1]

Most working pros I know consider the 24-70 f/2.8 L and 70-200 f/2.8 L IS to be their bread and butter lenses. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is on my next "to buy" list to replace my 28-105 USM.