Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 24-105 vs 28-135 as walkaround lens for 6D || |
Bought a 6D body recently and am looking for a walkaround lens. I have a 24-70 2.8 mki, but I find it too heavy and bulky for walkaround shooting. I am looking for a lightweight versatile lens, to take hiking, camping, etc, in particular.
I understand the 24-105 sharpness is a bit better, but how much so in practice? And how bothersome is the lens creep on the 28-135? I can save about $400 and roughly 4 oz on the 28-135, so if the IQ is close, I might lean that way...
Anyone with experience with both on a FF?
Let me put it this way. I've not been a fan of the IQ of the 24-105 (especially wide end away from center on FF) and I though it did much better than the 28-135 on my 5D2. The 28-135 IS really did a lot worse than I expected.
If you want lower eight than the tamron 24-70 or canon 24-70 f/2.8 varieties the 24-105 or Tamron 28-75 2.8 or 24-70 f/4 IS are options. The Tamron 28-75 I actually thought was sharper than the 24-105 and it costs less and is smaller and for sure lighter too but it does have less range, much slower AF and no IS. If you don't shoot a ton right around 50mm the 24-70 f/4 IS might be a good bet, probably the best image quality of the three if you trust early reports (other than around 50mm, where it actually may be worst) and it has fast AF and IS and it's even lighter than teh 24-105 although perhaps heavier than the tamron 28-75(?). It is going from an early adopter premium now though, it seems most Canon stuff comes out $$$ these days and then drops a nice chunk a few months later. Best quality of them all is the 24-70 II 2.8 but it does weight more than some (a bit less than the 24-70 2.8 I though).
tamron 24-70 VC = 29.1oz
24-70 II = 28.4oz
24-105 = 23.6oz
24-70 = 33.6oz
24-70 f/4 IS = 21.2oz
28-135 IS = 19.2oz
tamron 28-75 2.8 = 18.0 oz (remarkably light for an f/2.8 FF optic)