I cant really tell the difference between my 17-135 and 28-135

Strait out of the camera no PP

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Glad you like your lens. Not trying to be a spoil sport, but objective measurements of those two lenses proves the 28-135 to have lower MTF figures by 12-20% (comparing the extremes of the FL ranges of both lenses). Comparing 24mm vs. 28mm, the 17-55mm has 12% better MTF.

Just trying to keep you from embarrassing yourself too much with boasts of performance!

Not being a spoil sport at all.

Why? because I have no clue what MTF is. I googled it and came up with this: http://www.normankoren​.com/Tutorials/MTF.htm​l

I was a literature major in college so this is WAY above my head. Then I found this: MTF-Tests are among the most accurate and scientific tests performed on lenses

So now I have caught up to what you said 28-135 is crappier than the 17-55 in general by 12-20%

But they both look sharp to me. I Would not be able to tell which was shot with a 28-135 and which one was with the 17-55

OK I went out side and reshot so its the same subject

You should compare the same subject if you want to compare lenses!

sigma pi wrote in post #10628183
Not being a spoil sport at all.

Why? because I have no clue what MTF is. I googled it and came up with this: http://www.normankoren​.com/Tutorials/MTF.htm​l

I was a literature major in college so this is WAY above my head. Then I found this: MTF-Tests are among the most accurate and scientific tests performed on lenses

So now I have caught up to what you said 28-135 is crappier than the 17-55 in general by 12-20%

But they both look sharp to me. I Would not be able to tell which was shot with a 28-135 and which one was with the 17-55

And that is what really matters, that YOU are happy with it. There is way too much preoccupation on POTN and elsewhere with ownership of L lenses, highlighting in red each L lens that someone owns in their signature, like a medal of honor. That only proves you have the financial status to buy them.

add: For example, I could point out one L lens which is no better in MTF values than your 28-135 non-L.

Wilt wrote in post #10628250
And that is what really matters, that YOU are happy with it. There is way too much preoccupation on POTN and elsewhere with ownership of L lenses, highlighting in red each L lens that someone owns in their signature, like a medal of honor. That only proves you have the financial status to buy them.

Yeah I can not afford them I will keep my glasses off and never know better

no but really I think they are both sharp. I think I might keep my 28-135mm after all. I thought it was going to be light years apart. DOF yeah there is a difference but sharpness, not much if at all

JonSC wrote in post #10628238
You should compare the same subject if you want to compare lenses!

Yeah unfair there. But if I shoot the same thing the DOF makes it obvious.

The top one is the 28-135mm bottom 17-55mm

the same subject

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Going to do one more test with same aperture same focal length

If you're shrinking an image down to 1000px on the long side for web viewing then I'm not sure there will be a real noticeable difference. Try looking at 100% crops from the center & from the corners/edges or doing some 8x10 or larger prints.

Ahhhh you are right. I will do a 100% crop

Try testing both at f/2.8 and I guarantee you'll start seeing the difference.

The 28-135 quality can be very different from copy to copy. I've seen very very good ones and really bad ones. If you have one of the good copies then fantastic!
Charts & tests must be taken with a grain of salt when the lens tested changes a lot from copy to copy.

#1 is the 17-55 in the second set.

I'd say the main difference is about 11mm on the wide side, and 80mm on the long side. Also, that whole f/2.8 thing. You know, nothing big.

luigis wrote in post #10631754
The 28-135 quality can be very different from copy to copy. I've seen very very good ones and really bad ones. If you have one of the good copies then fantastic!
Charts & tests must be taken with a grain of salt when the lens tested changes a lot from copy to copy.

I think I got a decent one

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10631777
#1 is the 17-55 in the second set.

correct

robertwsimpson wrote in post #10631785
I'd say the main difference is about 11mm on the wide side, and 80mm on the long side. Also, that whole f/2.8 thing. You know, nothing big.

Sorry should have been more clear. The sharpness