Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 16 Jan 2014 (Thursday) 08:55
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

How does the 28-135 compare to the 24-105L on a full-frame camera

 
Z0RR0
Member
49 posts
Joined Jan 2013
Location: Montreal
     
Jan 17, 2014 09:26 |  #16

Owl_79 wrote in post #16610719 (external link)
I had them both, 28-135 was horrible compared to 24-105L. EF 24-105 4L is very good standard zoom lens, IS is really nice option.

28-135 has IS as well.


6D, 10D, Tokina 12-24, Canon 50 f1.8, 28-135 , 430EXII, GoPro 1&2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,323 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2051
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 17, 2014 09:27 |  #17

Z0RR0 wrote in post #16612919 (external link)
28-135 has IS as well.

Barely




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 17, 2014 11:02 |  #18

I've shot with both - used the 28-135 as walk-around for years. And shot some very dramatic images with it - surprising sometimes for a non 'L' lens. But I hear good and not to good things about it, and wonder if the factory produces some excellent copies and some not so excellent copies, like any other manufacturer. Sometimes, you luck out and get a 'perfect copy' ... and I'm guessing if that's true, I got a good one.

But the build quality of the 24-105 is very apparent as soon as you pick it up. So, there is that issue, and the 24-105 lens itself produces much better IQ - IMO. I shot some tests with each - hands down the 24-105 IQ better overall, even though with some images, it's not so easy to tell just looking at the monitor. The 105 end seems a bit 'picky', more so than the 135 end ...

I like the 135 range though, and would be even nicer with that range on the FF in an "L", instead of the 105 ... but you gotta pick and choose what works best for you personally.

I've often wondered why Canon (or others) don't produce a consumer version and a high-quality version of the same f/l on a lens (and adjust price) ... Like the 28-135 is extremely versatile, and I would buy a 28-135 before a 24-105 if both came in a "L" version. Instead, we must choose between lens quality AND lens lengths - with no apparent 'sales' reason.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Jan 17, 2014 11:05 |  #19

gonzogolf wrote in post #16612922 (external link)
Barely

The 28-135 is a relatively early IS lens, one of the first models introduced with it, and is rated by Canon to 2 stops. The 24-105 is about 8 years newer and its IS is rated for up to 3 stops. From using the lenses, I'd say this is fairly accurate in both cases.

Both have the type of IS which has to be manually turned off if locking the lens down on a tripod (some lenses with more sophisticated IS will self-detect and turn off IS themselves). So, when it comes to the IS, it's not really a very big difference, if you ask me.

The 28-135mm is sort of the "Rodney Dangerfield" of Canon lenses... Maybe because they've sold so many of them as a kit lens, it doesn't get any respect.

But for some reason more than a few pros swear by the 28-135mm. For example, Joe Farace (external link) has used one in nearly every Canon camera test he's ever written and photographed for Shutterbug magazine, as well using one extensively in his own work.

As to image quality from the 28-135, well judge for yourself. The images below are largely straight out of the camera, minimally processed proofs handled in bulk through Lightroom (default sharpening)...

28-135 at 47mm (f7.1 on 7D at ISO 400, 1/1000)...

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7119/6902516866_cb3d5d863f_z.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7096/6902517860_ab12170c8b_c.jpg


28-135 at 100mm (f7.1, 7D at ISO 400, 1/800)...
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6059/6269757431_771284f170_z.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6050/6269893255_2b0b114dd3_b.jpg


28-135 at 117mm (f7.1 on 7D, ISO 400, 1/800)...
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6035/6269756447_7a2d5d453d.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6170/6269756891_6cffd2e0d6_b.jpg


And, at it's worst... 28-135 at 135mm (f7.1, 7D, ISO 400, 1/800)...
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6118/6270288012_91378c7ac4_z.jpg
IMAGE: http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6118/6269927509_80cca2d338_b.jpg

This last image isn't the greatest composition, but I had a hard time finding one I had shot at 135mm.

It's really pretty simple:

If you have $750-1150 budget and the feel of the lens is important to you and you gotta have a red stripe, by all means get the 24-105mm. Okay, okay! To be fair it's likely the 24-105mm will prove more durable over the long run and might be expected to be more resistant to dust or moisture intrusion.

But, if you would prefer to spend $200-450 to get virtually the same image quality, focus performance and almost as much IS effectiveness.... can live with very slightly different range of focal lengths, f3.5-5.6 aperture instead of f4 throughout, not as nice feeling a lens, and merely a gold stripe... pick up a 28-135mm.

This isn't knocking the 24-105mm's image quality... it's quite good. This is praising how good the 28-0135's IQ is, as well as it's other features which are as good or nearly as good as the L, for such a reasonable cost. Either lens can do you proud, used right.

Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EOS5DC
Senior Member
791 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Jan 17, 2014 11:48 |  #20
bannedPermanent ban

Barely? My 100-400L barely has IS at 400mm. The 28-135's version is better than that. Although I valued the f/2.8 of my Tamron 28-75 over the 76-135 range of my 28-135, I still occasionally wish I had IS. But no way I'm paying for the loss of a stop, wide-end distortion and long-end softness of the 24-105 to get it. IF (very huge if) I ever upgrade my Tamron 28-75, it will be to the 24-70 II, and still not have IS.


Bodies: 60D, 6D.
EFs: 15-85, 10-22
EF: 28-75, 35 f/2 IS, Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L
Flash: 580EX II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,323 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2051
Joined Dec 2006
     
Jan 17, 2014 11:52 |  #21

EOS5DC wrote in post #16613238 (external link)
Barely? My 100-400L barely has IS at 400mm. The 28-135's version is better than that. Although I valued the f/2.8 of my Tamron 28-75 over the 76-135 range of my 28-135, I still occasionally wish I had IS. But no way I'm paying for the loss of a stop, wide-end distortion and long-end softness of the 24-105 to get it. IF (very huge if) I ever upgrade my Tamron 28-75, it will be to the 24-70 II, and still not have IS.

The 28-135 is about the same IS as the 100-400, which is nothing to brag about.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
monkey44
Senior Member
Avatar
726 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Jul 2003
     
Jan 17, 2014 14:13 |  #22

Kinda funny with the IS ... I never think about it on/off, it's just there when it works. And not there when it doesn't -- only time I turn it off intentionally is on the tripod.

most of the time, you use what you have, and work with it. The time these discussions come into play, it seems, is when someone plans to buy a lens - then the Q's come out and the opinions are always varied. It makes sense to show images when you make a point - like amphoto1 above - then we can decide for ourselves if the lens lives up to our expectations.

I happen to like the 28-135 a lot - and will not stop shooting with it just because I now have the 24-105. I'll use both until and if and when I form a different opinion ...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jimewall
Goldmember
1,871 posts
Likes: 11
Joined May 2008
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Jan 17, 2014 16:59 as a reply to  @ monkey44's post |  #23

Though I've hear some seem to get blurrier pictures with IS on using a tripod, the 24-105 should not need the IS turned off. The manual says turn off to save battery life, not for erratic behavior.

The 28-135 does need the IS off, and the manual says it does.


Thanks for Reading & Good Luck - Jim
GEAR

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,569 views & 0 likes for this thread
How does the 28-135 compare to the 24-105L on a full-frame camera
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is homarosa
1026 guests, 303 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.