28-105 or 28-135 lens

[Ron_M]

I'm looking to buy either the Canon 28-105 or 28-135 for a walk around lens. I notice a huge difference in price between these two lenses. They both have IS and USM. Can anyone tell me why and which one would be better. At my age I definitely need the IS. :)
Thanks for your help, Ron

[Harv]

I'm looking to buy either the Canon 28-105 or 28-135 for a walk around lens. I notice a huge difference in price between these two lenses. They both have IS and USM. Can anyone tell me why and which one would be better. At my age I definitely need the IS. :)
Thanks for your help, Ron

Hi, Ron, and welcome to the forum.

Let's see if I can help you out here. For the record, the 28-135 does in fact have IS but the 28-105 does not have IS. If you are in fact confusing that lens with the 24-105, that one does have IS but it is an 'L' designated lens which is a 'pro' level lens. The 28-135 will cost more than the 28-105 because it has the IS and the 24-105 will cost more than both of those because it is an 'L' lens with IS.

Hope that helps.

[Ron_M]

Hi, Ron, and welcome to the forum.

Let's see if I can help you out here. For the record, the 28-135 does in fact have IS but the 28-105 does not have IS. If you are in fact confusing that lens with the 24-105, that one does have IS but it is an 'L' designated lens which is a 'pro' level lens. The 28-135 will cost more than the 28-105 because it has the IS and the 24-105 will cost more than both of those because it is an 'L' lens with IS.

Hope that helps.

Sorry, my mistake. I did mean the 24-105 with IS.

[Harv]

Sorry, my mistake. I did mean the 24-105 with IS.

That's one of the lenses I own. I love it. Super image quality and the IS is great. If you are going to use it on a 30D (I own a 20D and a 30D) it has the field of view equal to a 38.4 - 168mm on a 35mm film camera because of the 30D's 1.6 FOV crop factor.

If you are interested in landscape photography, another lens to consider is the 17-40 f/4L. I also have that lens and its great. With the shorter focal length, you should be able to get by without the IS. The 35mm equivalent would be 27.2-64mm. It's about half the cost of the 24-105 f/4L IS.

Either lens is top of the line for image quality and build quality.

[Ron_M]

That's one of the lenses I own. I love it. Super image quality and the IS is great. If you are going to use it on a 30D (I own a 20D and a 30D) it has the field of view equal to a 38.4 - 168mm on a 35mm film camera because of the 30D's 1.6 FOV crop factor.

If you are interested in landscape photography, another lens to consider is the 17-40 f/4L. I also have that lens and its great. With the shorter focal length, you should be able to get by without the IS. The 35mm equivalent would be 27.2-64mm. It's about half the cost of the 24-105 f/4L IS.

Either lens is top of the line for image quality and build quality.

Thanks a lot. I do have a Tokina 12-24 and it takes awesome photos, so I think I'll keep it for now.
Thanks again, Ron

[Harv]

Hi, Ron.

I remembered you were looking at the 24-105 f/4L IS as a possible choice in lens. If you are keeping the 12-24 Tokina, the 24-105 could be a good choice.

I posted some pics yesterday that I took with that lens. The images were shot in RAW and converted to jpeg with a very mild sharpening pass. These are pretty much straight out of the camera with no other post processing.

Here is the link for you if you want to have a look:

http://www.pixel-shooter.com/forum/showthread.php?t=830

Hope this helps.

[Rudi]

Ron,

No contest - the 24-105L runs rings around the 28-135 IS !

[Ron_M]

I am concerned that the F4 may be a bit slow especially in low light situations.

[Rudi]

I am concerned that the F4 may be a bit slow especially in low light situations.

Ah yes - that is what the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is for! :)

All my zooms, with the exception of the 100-400L, are f/2.8. I refuse to shoot anything slower unless there is no other alternative - I am just so used to having that f/2.8 option available to me at all times!

I suggest a couple of small, light, fast primes for the times when the zoom is just too slow...

[Kevin]

Ron, originally you mentioned want that range for a walk around. Will you run into situations where you think you'll need f2.8 or faster? Your alternative would be to crank up the ISO.

I got to use Keith's 24-105 but I haven't really had a chance to study the images taken with it. My only comment about it was that it felt "insignificant" in comparison to the 24-70. I like a bigger lens though. They're both 77mm but the 24-70 is just more robust feeling.

Joe Marques, a new member, had the 24-70 and now has the 24-105. He swears by it. Maybe he'll chime in if he sees this thread.

[Rudi]

I am in the fortunate position of owning the 24-70L, and my dad having the 24-105L. We both shoot with the 5D, he bought his own (not sharing mine! :D).

I will say one thing - I am glad that I own the 24-70L! For me, it is the better lens. I use f/2.8 a lot of the time, and if the zoom was any slower, I would have to revert to using primes a lot more often.

That said, the 24-105L is a great lens! Optically, it is *just* short of the 24-70L, but you wouldn't know it unless you are comparing images side-by-side. Personally, I have no need for IS at those short focal lengths. I am sure that it comes in handy on occasion, but I just don't need it. I am not against IS, I specifically bought the 100-400L for the versatility *and* the IS at the long end (but I did decide on the non-IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8 L).

The 24-70L is not that large. If you think that you will shoot in low light or wider apertures, it is the better lens despite the lack of IS. It is also slightly superior optically, yada, yada, yada. Ultimately, you have to make a choice between IS and larger aperture! :)

[Ron_M]

I do have the Tamron SP AF28-75/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro as a walk around lens now, but was thinking of a lens with IS. Perhaps I should crank up the shutter speed to avoid shake when not using the tripod. I do usually have the shutter speed no slower that the focal length. For 75mm the shutter speed would be no slower than 75x1.6 = 120 or 1/125 of a second.

[Rudi]

Ron,

If you already have the Tamron, stick with it. Buy a fast prime to compliment the zoom, for those times when you can't bump up the ISO. You will be happier! :)

(That Tamron is an impressive lens for the money - I have used it.)

[Ron_M]

Thank you all for your help. I'll stick with the Tamron for now.
Ron

[Kevin]

That Tamron is supposed to be a fantastic lens. Once you add in the lower price, you really can't go wrong. I'd second the idea of picking up a really fast prime for low light use. I'm watching for the 50/f1.2 but it'll probably be astronomical in price. :)

[Roger]

Since you have the WA cover so well I am going to recommend the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM or the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM. Both are better over all lens.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5&sort=4&cat=27&page=1
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=151&sort=4&cat=27&page=1
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2870_28/index.htm

Reports indicate that the 28-70 L has a slight build advantage but I would say both would be good lens.

Follow that up with a 70-200 f/2.8L IS or non IS or 4.0 L and you have a complete ranage.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28is/index.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=4&cat=27&page=1
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=13&sort=4&cat=27&page=1
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4/index.htm
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=4&cat=27&page=1

If you looking for a non zoom option, ( also lens money at once) I would go with a couple primes, the 35 2.8 , 50 1.4 or 1.8 ,and either or a 85 1.8 , 100 2.0 * reviews on the above pages*

Or for complete great L loveness. Go with the 24 1.4 L , the 35 1.4 L , the 50 mm 1.4 L, the 85 1.2 L and the 135 2.0 L. Followed by the 200 2.8 L. * reviews on the above pages*

Edit * added links *

Hope that helps.

[Rudi]

Reports indicate that the 28-70 L has a slight build advantage but I would say both would be good lens.

Not true! I owned both versions, and my 24-70L is just as well-built and optically superior to my old 28-70L.

the 35 2.8

No such animal. The 35mm f/2 is the cheaper version. The 35mm f/1.4 L is the one to get if money is no object, though. :)

[Roger]

typo , was saying the 2.0 ty.

[Rudi]

typo , was saying the 2.0 ty.

No problem, Lundrog. Just making sure the right info gets out there. If I make a mistake, I hope someone else does the same. :)