Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2012 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?
  
 
wgman02
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Could any first hand comparisions be offered ? 650$ price difference worth it ? Any info appreciated Thanks


Feb 16, 2012 at 08:43 PM
Jeff
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Worth it.


Feb 16, 2012 at 08:44 PM
eosfun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Yes. Microcontrast and colour rendition alone are already worth the extra. The L build quality and better IS are bonuses. The 28-135 IS is optically better than it's reputation, but build quality is ridiculous for a Canon lens. EOSfun L quality or budget EOSfun, that's the question. Your choice!


Feb 16, 2012 at 08:46 PM
lhdvries
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Yes -- way worth it!!!! I've had both & the files from the 28-135, while good didn't compare with the 24-105. !!

Leon



Feb 16, 2012 at 08:50 PM
wgman02
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Thank you Thank You N Thank You


Feb 16, 2012 at 08:53 PM
leftymgp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


I wouldn't skimp on the glass. In the long run you'll probably be happier with the L. Also, lenses last a long time and usually retain a lot of their value. So it's an investment...yeah, that's it.


Feb 16, 2012 at 08:55 PM
KaaX
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Another vote for 24-105. I was quite annoyed by the 28-135's zoom creep which got to be quite ridiculous by the end of my ownership of that lens... :-)


Feb 16, 2012 at 09:08 PM
eosfun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Also, lenses last a long time and usually retain a lot of their value. So it's an investment...yeah, that's it.

that may be true for exotic lenses like long L glass, but is in general not true for mainstream lenses like a kitlens. And that is in fact what the 24-105L has been for the 5D series. Also many pre-mkII lenses or lenses that got IS versions as a successor do depreciate faster than the owner appreciates I recommend to buy glass to get the EOSfun out of it, enjoy every shot you take of it. Most people use their glass years and years and shoot hundreds or thousands of photos with their lenses. If you count some cents per picture it's never expensive to have a great lens. But please don't think of photogear as investment, unless you are a paid professional!



Feb 16, 2012 at 09:09 PM
Ian.Dobinson
Online
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


leftymgp wrote:
I wouldn't skimp on the glass. In the long run you'll probably be happier with the L. Also, lenses last a long time and usually retain a lot of their value. So it's an investment...yeah, that's it.


Yep don't skimp on glass. You do get cheap glass that's worth it (50/1.8 85/1.8 etc) but in general good glass costs.

And yes good glass holds it s value in general so your investment is worth it . But as EOS says the 24-105 is not a lens I would pay full retail cost for( I didn't ) . There are loads around used at much better cost.



Feb 16, 2012 at 09:21 PM
paradigmguy
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


the L lens, it's a no brainer. It's a gamble with the 28-135, you can be lucky and get a great copy, or totally be stuck with a bad copy, so there is definitely copy variation with this lens.


Feb 16, 2012 at 09:39 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Ralph Thompson
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


When I started my youth sports Team & Individual (T&I) business, I had the 28-135 and it worked fine. But the aperature wasn't constant which wasn't a game changer. It was good for what I did. It tended to get loose after a while. I went to "L" series and bought a 24-70, 17-40 and last year a 24-105. The 28-135 has it's place... but if you are a working pro, it's about the same as a pro mechanic going down to harbour frieght and buying a $19.00 socket set... Yea it'll work for a while, but sooner or later the MAC/Snap-on guy is going to get your business....

Now that I've said that, I still work my 50 1.8 to death (both of them)!



Feb 16, 2012 at 09:57 PM
wgman02
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


thanks


Feb 17, 2012 at 01:24 AM
jbrandt378
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


I personally don't find any real difference other than the constant aperture. If that doesn't bother you and you get a good copy and you are looking to save some money, then get the 28-135. I have a mint 28-135 I'm selling by the way. . I bought it for my second shooter, but she prefers a constant aperature. That is the ONLY reason I'm selling mine. Optically it's great.


Feb 17, 2012 at 01:43 AM
leftymgp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


eosfun wrote:
that may be true for exotic lenses like long L glass, but is in general not true for mainstream lenses like a kitlens. And that is in fact what the 24-105L has been for the 5D series. Also many pre-mkII lenses or lenses that got IS versions as a successor do depreciate faster than the owner appreciates I recommend to buy glass to get the EOSfun out of it, enjoy every shot you take of it. Most people use their glass years and years and shoot hundreds or thousands of photos with their lenses. If you count some cents
...Show more

Don't ruin my delusional justifications!

On a serious note, though. All lenses hold their value better than camera bodies. They're probably not going to appreciate, but they won't be worth a small fraction of what you paid years down the line.



Feb 17, 2012 at 01:45 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


"L". I owned both. I purchased the 28-135 in 2000. It was the most expensive lens I bought till then. It felt nice first. But the two lenses are comparable in nothing.

24-105 is faster, faster and more reliable in AF, better and more trustable in IS, built much (much, much) better and its IQ runs out my copy of 28-135 in any way.



Feb 17, 2012 at 02:36 PM
twistedlim
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


24-105 hands down, worth every penny more.


Feb 17, 2012 at 02:42 PM
omarlyn
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


eosfun wrote:
Yes. Microcontrast and colour rendition alone are already worth the extra. The L build quality and better IS are bonuses. The 28-135 IS is optically better than it's reputation, but build quality is ridiculous for a Canon lens. EOSfun L quality or budget EOSfun, that's the question. Your choice!


+1...The 28-135 certainly gets a 'bad rap' from gear heads but is actually a descent lens. However, it does not compare to the 24-105 which is superior in every way (except price of course). I use my 24-105 EXTENSIVELY...easily over 100K images over the last two years and I've always kept a 28-135 as an ER back-up. Thankfully, I've never had to use the 28-135 in an ER situation but (since I already own it), it's good peace of mind to have it as back-up. Priced as a kit lens or purchased used for about $200-$220, I'd say it's a good value but I wouldn't pay much more than that.

HTH,
Omar



Feb 17, 2012 at 02:55 PM
Al Rohrer
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Nothing wrong with the 28-135 except it's slow to focus. I still have one on a backup 20D and my daughter started out with one on an Elan 7, kept it on her 10D, and has a new 28-135 on her 7D. She does family and baby photography and loves that lens. Personally, I prefer the 24-105 but I would not feel undergunned if I had to use a 28-135.
Another undervalued lens is Canon's 28-105, at least the original one. I had one and sold it and wish I had it back. It was smaller and much lighter (and cheaper) than the 28-135 or 24-105 and the image quality was still excellent for an everyday tote-everywhere lens.



Feb 17, 2012 at 04:13 PM
kakomu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Al Rohrer wrote:
Another undervalued lens is Canon's 28-105, at least the original one. I had one and sold it and wish I had it back. It was smaller and much lighter (and cheaper) than the 28-135 or 24-105 and the image quality was still excellent for an everyday tote-everywhere lens.


Further to this point, unless the OP is a pixel peeper or gear head, I think he would probably be satisfied with any of Canon's older mid-range zooms of the 1990s and early 2000s (even the 24-85 which seems to get an even worse rap than the 28-135).

That being said, it really depends on whether OP is using a full frame or crop camera. On my Rebel, I didn't like how long the 28-135 was on the wide end. It was far more manageable on a 5D.

However, if the lens is going to be used in situations where longer is better, then the 28-135 may be a better bet or, the aforementioned 28-105 which also features a faster aperture on the long end.



Feb 17, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Gochugogi
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Canon 24-105 Canon 28-135 ?


Al Rohrer wrote:
Nothing wrong with the 28-135 except it's slow to focus. I still have one on a backup 20D and my daughter started out with one on an Elan 7, kept it on her 10D, and has a new 28-135 on her 7D. She does family and baby photography and loves that lens. Personally, I prefer the 24-105 but I would not feel undergunned if I had to use a 28-135.
Another undervalued lens is Canon's 28-105, at least the original one. I had one and sold it and wish I had it back. It was smaller and much lighter (and
...Show more

Hmm, I used a 28-135 USM since it's debut in the 90s and thought AF to be blazing fast! Some cameras need to "think" a bit in low light when at the long end as the F5.6 aperture doesn't offer much focusing data. However, once a target is acquired, the ring type USM and rear element focus group really gets it done. Obviously the 24-105 is better in just about every way but the old 28-135 was a breakthrough optic for its day and still a great value on FF cameras. Probably the weakest points of the 28-135 are the tendency to flare when shooting towards strong light sources (not the best sunset lens) and the loose-as-a-goose nested barrels (unwanted zoom activity).

My reviews:

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef28_135usm.htm

http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/canon_ef24-105.htm



Feb 17, 2012 at 05:01 PM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password