OK, I have owned the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS for about and month and decided to give the 24-70 2.8L a whirl since it is supposed to be awesome. Well, I ran several tests and the results netted nearly identical pictures. Should I send the 24-70 back to BH and hope for a better "copy". I mean for a 700+ dollar difference in price, I was expecting some darn sharp pics. BTW, I am using the lenses on a Mark III.
Edited by rwduenke on Nov 10, 2007 at 02:20 AM GMT
Edited by rwduenke on Nov 10, 2007 at 03:15 AM GMT (Reason: typo)
I had both, and ended up selling the 24-70, not because the 28-135 yielded better pictures (it did not), but it had a more useful range for me and it did do a very good job of making really nice images when I used it (or still use) with good technique. The 24-70 is a superb lens and has better color, contrast, and sharpness, but the 28-135 is no slouch when used properly, and is a highly underrated lens, IMHO. I've used one for almost 10 years now with great results most of the time, and the focal range really suits my needs as a walk-around lens more than did my 24-70.
not sure what you were expecting, in terms of sharpness they're both going to yield similiar results. for the 24-70L you're paying for the build quality and the fact that it's a 2.8 fstop lens, why don't you take a shot with both of them at 2.8, oh wait that's right the 28-135 is not that fast
if all you want to measure is sharpness then the more affordable lens from sigma, tamron and canon will give you that. the L lens give you something more and it's a personal decision if it's worth the price difference.
yeah yeah I am well aware of the f stop advantage. The thing is I will almost always be using this lens with a flash, like birthday parties and such. I have a 135/2 L for times when i need "fast". I guess I really just thought there would be a noticable image quality upgrade. So anyway, I think I will keep the 28-135 for the "walkaround" and send the 24-70 back to BH and get a 28-200. Now I just have to decide which one to get. I think the 2.8 IS
minh giang wrote:
not sure what you were expecting, in terms of sharpness they're both going to yield similiar results. for the 24-70L you're paying for the build quality and the fact that it's a 2.8 fstop lens, why don't you take a shot with both of them at 2.8, oh wait that's right the 28-135 is not that fast
if all you want to measure is sharpness then the more affordable lens from sigma, tamron and canon will give you that. the L lens give you something more and it's a personal decision if it's worth the price difference.
ming giang hit it right on the money.
I use a 28-135 all the time and it yields great pictures. However, it does have limitations. My copy will be a little soft at 3.5 and really becomes a great lens at 5.0 and up. I'm guessing that 24-70L will yeild better quality from 5.0 down as well as better color and contrast.
i guess we know the difference was worth it for you, but is it really 2x as sharp? Perhaps you have a really good 24-70 and had a mediocre 28-135 (whereas the OP had the opposite?)
i own a 24-70L for the record, i've used a 28-135, nothing too critical so i can't say for certain but i felt it was fine, i just wanted the faster lens. with the exception of my primes, i own 3 L lens, so i could be called a L-fanboy, however i think people tend to exaggerate how much better the L lens are over the consumer line lens.
As with most things as price goes up return on investment tends to go down, is the 24-70 or 24-105 2X better then a 28-135? If it does what you need then yes, but i if you only need to shoot at +F4 then maybe not.
rwduenke wrote:
OK, I have owned the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS for about and month and decided to give the 24-70 2.8L a whirl since it is supposed to be awesome. Well, I ran several tests and the results netted nearly identical pictures. Should I send the 24-70 back to BH and hope for a better "copy". I mean for a 700+ dollar difference in price, I was expecting some darn sharp pics. BTW, I am using the lenses on a Mark III.
rwduenke, i guess itīs obvious that we need to see some images i order to "advice" if your "copy" is within the tolerances known as sharp. Further, beaware that the 24-70 f/2.8īs strong side is not itīs sharpness but more itīs versatility in the 2.8 range of lenses as well as the build quality needed for production work like that required of the PJīs.
Care to share your workflow on how you got to the decision that your 28-135 was equally sharp as the 24-70? ( I have no experience with neither but do recognice a sharp file when i see one)
On a final note, donīt believe the hype, if your own experiences tell you that the previous zoom fits your need better then by all means, go get it, whatever gets the job done is the right lens for you
I have not owned a Canon lens yet that wasn't "sharp enough" for me... that's just me of course, but I find the 24-70L to be one of Canon's most beautiful lenses in all other ways... color, contrast and bokeh... I think these add up in a nonlinear manner and give the *appearance of greater "sharpness" etc. in many real live photos... it's just a *special lens IMO.
I had the 28-135 and before I sold it I compared it to my 17-40 f/4L at equivalent focal lengths. The difference was very significant at f/4 where the L lens was extremely sharp compared to the 28-135. But stopped down to f/8, the two lenses were on par.
I only compared center sharpness, and didn't consider distortion or corner sharpness.
I owned the 28-135 for a few years, it is a very fine all-around lens. Stopped down, it is quite sharp.
On both the wide and the tele end, I found it a little soft though. On these ends, it has to be stopped down for a sharper image. I don't find sharpness a big problem with this lens, IMHO it could do with a bit better contrast.
And these last points were exactly the things that improved when I bought the 24-105.
I compared mine with a 24-105L and found very little difference.
I used the 28-135 on a recent 8 week trip around Europe. The focal length range and IS made it a perfect travel lens. Had a 35L for low light and an Oly 21 for wide landscapes.
Yes, it is sometimes hard to tell a picture is taken by a L or non-L lens as it is from different photographer. But for sure your hand will tell you which one is a L len even if you close your eye.
Anyway, for me an L len has more chance to produce great pictures.
I would like to think it is the photographer, not the lens, that produces great pictures....................
If you are satisfied with the less expensive lens, go with it. Too many people think that the more expensive the equipment, the better a photographer they are.
