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

Owl_79 wrote in post #16610719
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.

Z0RR0 wrote in post #16612919
28-135 has IS as well.

Barely

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.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16612922
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 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)...

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.

EOS5DC wrote in post #16613238
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.

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 ...

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.