Canon Lens Question 28-135mmIS Via 24-105mmIS, L Series

[captures.in.time]

Hi all

Ok I cant actually afford this till a year from now as I've got my wedding to save for... but... anyway...

I currently have the 28-135 that I got as part of my kit when I got my EOS3... Ive sinced moved to digital and have the EOS5... I sold my EOS3 body on ebay but kept my lenses.

I have 3, Sigma 15 - 30mm (or is it 35mm!), 28 -135mmIS Canon, 75 - 300mmIS Canon.

Im thinking i'll upgrade my 28 - 135 to the L series 24 -105mm... but im not sure... i love a good walk about lens as travel photography is my thing... I went for a 28 - 300 Tamron recently... but have already passed that over to my finacee who has just bought a 450d that only came with the 18-55mm. So its good enough for her starting out... I digress...

Im thinking the 24- 105 will better as that extra 4 mm on the wide side will be usefull... as there is many a pic where I want to zoom a bit wider curently... and at the long end you can always crop!

But my question is on IQ... How much better will the 24 - 105 be over my 28 - 135?

Mark

 

[StewartR]

But my question is on IQ... How much better will the 24 - 105 be over my 28 - 135?

The 24-105L is a better lens than the 28-135, no question. But the reason it costs 2½ times as much isn't all about image quality. That extra money (£700ish new, compared to £300ish) pays for:

• better image quality
• better build quality
• constant f/4 aperture
• weather-proofing
• hood and pouch (supplied as standard with "L" lenses)

Whether or not these other features are useful to you is something only you can decide. But the 28-135 isn't a bad lens optically, by any means.

If I were you and thinking of upgrading my lenses, I'd start with the 75-300. That is definitely one of the least impressive lenses that Canon make, judging from what people say about it (I don't have any personal experience). And there are lots of decent alternatives.

 

[Canon Bob]

I'd have to agree with Stewart here....the 75-300 is definately the weakest link in your current lens lineup.

In terms of sharpness, the 28-135 can't compete with the 24-105 at the wide end but it does catch up as you go towards the longer end. By the time you're at 100mm then the 28-135 is sharper than its expensive sibling.....due to the fact that it's not near the end of its range whilst the 24-105 is maxed out. In terms of colour contrast and build quality, the L lens is clearly better.

Bob

 

[captures.in.time]

I guess my reason for thinking about changing the 28 - 135 first is its the lens I shoot 75% of my photos with as I do alot of travel and landscape shots.

The more I use my sigma the more I feel landscape shots at the wider ranges of the lens dont often work (for me anyway) But then other times im glad I have it!

Im thinking from what you are saying though that my lens (28 -135) is better then than the review I read stated.

If I was to be upgrading my 75 - 300 what would you suggest?

 

[Kdot]

If I was to be upgrading my 75 - 300 what would you suggest?

55-250mm is at the budget end but IQ is great; 70-300mm if you MUST have the extra 50mm, and one of the 70-200mm if you can come down by 50mm.

Easy!