28-135 IS USM or 24-70 f2.8L?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I have a Canon 28-135 IS lens which I'm happy with, but after recent
experiences with an L-series lens I am considering adding the 24-70 or
28-70 L lens to my camera bag.
Has anyone compared one of these L-series lenses to the 28-135? Is there
a signifigant difference in image quality/sharpness? Would it be worth the
expenditure? Or would I be better served spending the money elsewhere?

Kelly

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 29 May 2005 09:15:48 -0500, Kelly wrote:

> I have a Canon 28-135 IS lens which I'm happy with, but after recent
> experiences with an L-series lens I am considering adding the 24-70 or
> 28-70 L lens to my camera bag.
> Has anyone compared one of these L-series lenses to the 28-135? Is there
> a signifigant difference in image quality/sharpness? Would it be worth the
> expenditure? Or would I be better served spending the money elsewhere?
>
> Kelly

That's sort of like comparing a top end lens with a disposable camera lens.

There is a VAST difference in quality and sharpness. The 28-135mm IS is a
mediocre kit lens. It isn't particularly sharp and about the only things
going for it are its IS feature and focal length range.

If I could have found a used 28-70mm or 24-70mm L lens I would still be
shooting Canon EOS. I couldn't so I went back to Nikon where there is a
plethora of excellent used lenses on the market, many of which are a lot
better than Canons.

In your situation I would advise selling the 28-135mm (don't expect to get
back too much for it) and get the 24-70mm L. You won't be sorry.

--
?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Kelly" <kbbmjb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsp.srji8mhn0e5onu@kelly.om.cox.net...
> I have a Canon 28-135 IS lens which I'm happy with, but after recent
> experiences with an L-series lens I am considering adding the 24-70 or
> 28-70 L lens to my camera bag.
> Has anyone compared one of these L-series lenses to the 28-135? Is there
> a signifigant difference in image quality/sharpness? Would it be worth the
> expenditure? Or would I be better served spending the money elsewhere?
>
> Kelly
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/


I have compared them, I currently own the 28-135, and plan to augment it
with a 24-70 by the end of the month, income permitting. There is a
significant improvement in sharpness, roughly comparable to the difference
between the 28-105 and the 28-135, and the added speed can be critical.
That said, notice I said "augment" not "replace." I still plan on using the
28-135 as a walk around lens, and the IS is a big help when more depth of
field is required, rather than lens speed.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>
>
> I'm in the same boat and considering primes for the missing 24-70 range.
> I have a cheap zoom in that whole range which is OK for normal lighting
> but I don't really bother pulling it out. A really sweet prime ot two
> would give motivation to change lenses for that range.
>
One prime lens you should consider picking up in that range is the 50mm
f1.8, for about $100 it's both fairly fast and very sharp. If I can't get
the shot indoors without going to 800 or 1600 ISO, I can usually get it
with the 50. Works pretty well as a macro too.
I currently have a cheap 28-105 that is poor (and slow), I bought the
28-135 IS hoping it would do better indoors but I'm still not getting the
shots I want to. I'm hoping maybe I can get a "warm fuzzy" that the 24-70
L-series will fit the bill, otherwise I'll have to start researching
primes. Let me know what you get and how they work out for you!

Kelly
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/