Torn bwt 28-135 & 24-70L

[Dante King]

Ok, I know the difference between L glass and non L. I was wondering your toughts on if it would be any signifigant benefits to going to the 24-70 2.8L over the Canon 28-135mm F3.5-5.6 IS USM?

I know Is gives you 2 stops, but is it worth while to go for the faster L glass other than optical quality of the glass used?

[gasrocks]

Save a few $ and get the (much favored in these forums) Tamron 28-75. Great lens at a Great price.

[In Hoc Up2 Eyeballs]

If money is no object the 24-70 is a good choice. Having owned both lenses (sold the 28-135, because I own the 70-200) my copies were equally sharp but a noticable quality in color went to the 24-70. Don't forget the weight difference. You can't go wrong with either choice.

[ed2day]

I own both. My 28-135 is very sharp in terms of pure resloving power when stopped down. Close to the 24-70, maybe even a shosh better. The 28-135 softens considerably wide open, the 24-70 just a tad. But there's a quality to the 24-70 I dont see in many other lenses. Certainly the color is excellent and that's part of it. Obviously the f/2.8 is a big advantage, but the IS works well on the 28-135 and allows you to get some pictures you couldn't get with the 24-70 even at 2.8. My plan was to sell my 28-135, but I'm not sure I want to. The big advantage of the 28-135 is versatility: great range (though I miss 24-28), IS, lightweight, plus I'll take it into situations where there is a greater danger of having it damaged/stolen. It's still probably my best choice if I just take one lens.

edit: that's sposed to be 24-28. Can't get rid of that cursed smiley face.

[Dante King]

Thanks for the replies!! The IS is hard to toss out. I have been looking to add an L lens but having a hard time justifying it whit my current line up.