28-135 IS or 24-105L IS ? Which is sharper?

I am in need of a new lens to replace my doomed 28-80 kit lens. I have others ( L lenses) but have had people tell me that the 28-135 IS kit that comes on the 7D and such is sharper then the 21-105 L IS. Is there any truth to that? I don't mind spending the money for the L but why do it if it is not as sharp.....

It will be going on a 7D if that matters

I had the 28-105 lens, which is *sort of* like the 28-135's baby brother. It was soft, but it started me out in photography. I also used the 28-135 for a while, when my friend bought his 24-70. Likewise, it started getting softer as it went close to 135 for me. He found, and I concurred, that the sweet spot on his copy was around 90mm. Bokeh seemed--messy.

Likewise, my first L was the 24-105L. It was fantastic on my 30D, except I didn't like the bokeh. Or actually, I didn't like how far I had to be to get some separation. However, it handled fantastically, and it took whatever I threw at it with a gusto.

Don't know about the 28-135 being sharper but I've used both and would say the difference most real world situations is....marginal.

There's no doubting the 24-105 is better overall...F/4 throughout, far better build quality, and under controlled tests I'm sure has better performance in areas other than sharpness (flare, CA, vignetting).

Whether those features are worth the extra $$ is the big question.

I still own a 28-135 and use it a fair bit.

Thanks. Anyone else?

The 24-105 is sharperer. Its a much better all around lens, as it should be for roughly $600 more if you are shopping used.

PeteD wrote in post #15085240
I am in need of a new lens to replace my doomed 28-80 kit lens. I have others ( L lenses) but have had people tell me that the 28-135 IS kit that comes on the 7D and such is sharper then the 21-105 L IS. Is there any truth to that? I don't mind spending the money for the L but why do it if it is not as sharp.....

It will be going on a 7D if that matters

the 24-105 is sharper, it's also a lot more expensive. but even the cheap 18-55IS and 55-250IS kit lens are sharper than the 28-135

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=2​&APIComp=2

I have the 28-135 that came with my T2i. Since I got the 5D3 with the 24-105 IS L, I gave that camera and lens to my wife. the 28-135 does take sharp images, if you are patient and have a decent understanding of how to use your camera. The 24-105L seems to have had a lukewarm following from those using it with the 5D2 until it was paired with the 5D3 then WOW, that lens shines.

Im not sure if you will have a similar experience with the 7D and not see too much of a difference between the two lenses.

First DSLR for me was the 40D/28-135. I sent it back and got the 40D and the 24-105 separately. It's the most used lens for me, even after going FF (still have the 40D and use it a lot).

24-105 is the route to go IMO

The 28-135 was the lens I used most for several years but when I got the 24-105 I could see an immediate difference. I am not sure it was a lot sharper but it gave more contrast which gave pictures more pop and in turn did give the appearance of being sharper. I love the 24-105 and it is my most used lens.

I have sold quite literally Thousands of images that were shot with my 28-135 and not one single customer has EVER complained about the shots not being sharp. I have never seen an unsharp ( as against out of focus) shot taken with that lens either.

I don't give a fig about pi$$ing contests over which bit of gear is better than something else, I'm in the game for the money. If the clients are happy, so am I. I

And I am not biased, I own the 28-135 and the 24-105. I am just calling them the way I see them.
I had an old metal mount 28-105 I think it was and that thing was incredibly sharp with fantastic colour saturation. Unfortunately it got knocked out of my hand one time and there were no parts to fix it. Still kept the poor thing though.

glumpy wrote in post #15092388
I have sold quite literally Thousands of images that were shot with my 28-135 and not one single customer has EVER complained about the shots not being sharp. I have never seen an unsharp ( as against out of focus) shot taken with that lens either.

I don't give a fig about pi$$ing contests over which bit of gear is better than something else, I'm in the game for the money. If the clients are happy, so am I. I

And I am not biased, I own the 28-135 and the 24-105. I am just calling them the way I see them.
I had an old metal mount 28-105 I think it was and that thing was incredibly sharp with fantastic colour saturation. Unfortunately it got knocked out of my hand one time and there were no parts to fix it. Still kept the poor thing though.

What a customer 'thinks' is sharp and what is actually sharp, are two different things. The threshold for impressing the average person with photography is pretty low. They're usually just happy it's in focus.

OP, 24-105 for the reasons that have already been stated; better build, optically a bit better at controlling CA, etc. and sharper.

Go with primes.

But here are a couple, shot with the same camera, using the two lenses you mentioned.


28-135