Canon 28-135 IS how much sharper than 28-105 ?

Discussion in 'Canon' started by Scott, Apr 10, 2004.

  1. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Hi everyone,

    Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that the
    28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6, I of
    course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies, but
    what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the same? I'm
    only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)

    Thanks
    Scott
     
    Scott, Apr 10, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Scott

    Skip M Guest

    I have the 28-135, my wife, the 28-105. The 28-135 is noticeably sharper,
    but not enough to justify the price difference, if it weren't for the IS.
    By the way, there is one above those two to consider, the 24-70 f2.8L. Just
    food for further thought...<EvilGrin>
     
    Skip M, Apr 11, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Scott

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "Scott"
    The IS on the 28-135 lens "IS" about image quality. You do like sharper
    images, don't you? The IS allows that.
     
    Annika1980, Apr 11, 2004
    #3
  4. Scott

    Scott Guest

    Now that is just plain not nice. :)
     
    Scott, Apr 11, 2004
    #4
  5. Scott

    Scott Guest

    I know the IS will allow slower handheld speeds due to the stabilization;
    maybe I should have stated, all things equal, for example if both were in a
    tripod, which lens would result in a sharper picture? As I knew it, the IS
    allows about an extra two stops at the far end, allowing handheld shots in
    lower light. This would relate to a capability for smaller aperture and
    therefore greater depth of field in better light, correct?

    Thanks,
    Scott
     
    Scott, Apr 11, 2004
    #5
  6. Yes, or evening / nightshots. Or indoor, say museum, shots. I can
    handhold 1/4s wide angle, 1/8s full zoom and get 80% good pictures.
    This is more than 2 stops for me. And the lens is pretty sharp,
    especially when stepped down.

    Apart from the 50 mm f/1.8 and f/1.4 it is considered one of the
    best non-L lenses.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Apr 11, 2004
    #6
  7. Scott

    k Guest

    they suck.
    get primes.

    k

     
    k, Apr 11, 2004
    #7
  8. Scott

    Skip M Guest

    You've used the 28-135?
     
    Skip M, Apr 11, 2004
    #8
  9. Scott

    DM Guest

    In my tests they were about the same. The 28-105 showed less distortion
    and is much smaller and lighter too.
     
    DM, Apr 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Scott

    Timo Labrenz Guest

    Same here, tried both. I have the 3.5-4.5/28-105mm USM II and a friend
    has the 28-135mm IS. We swapped for tests and there was hardly a
    difference in optical quality. I know, some pages like
    http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html claim that the 28-135mm is better
    wide open, but I really can't see a difference at the test pictures
    I've taken.

    IS is nice, especially for shots exposed at speeds from 1/125s at the
    lense's long end and 1/8s at the wide end. Okay, handheld shots at that
    speeds happen, however, I always have a reliable tripod or monopod in
    the car or with me anyway, so I wouldn't have to use IS very often. And
    I'd be pretty pissed off if I left the 'pod at home because of the IS
    and then unexpectedly need 1/4s or more.

    The IS lens has a much larger filter thread. Especially fitting
    polarizers or achromatic* close-up lenses will cost quite a lot of
    money compared to the smaller versions.

    Timo

    *Can you say "achromatic close-up lenses" in English? I'm thinking of
    close-up lenses like the Canon 500G that have two lenses instead of
    one.
     
    Timo Labrenz, Apr 13, 2004
    #10
  11. Interesting; I've never used a 28-105 (I have a 28-135) but I've always
    suspected this to be the case. In my case I feel the IS is sufficient
    justification anyway.
    About half my other lenses take 77 or 72mm filters anyway, so this is no
    big issue
    One of the beauties of English is that you can say pretty well anything
    you like. Of course, whether anyone else will understand you is another
    matter...

    In this case, the phrase you use makes perfect sense and does not even
    offend against traditional English style.
     
    David Littlewood, Apr 13, 2004
    #11
  12. Scott

    Bruce Graham Guest

    <snip>
    the Canon MTF curves show the 28-135 to be better than the 28-105,
    especially near centre, sometimes worse at edges. Given that so many
    people are using them on smaller sensors, that might make the 28-135 even
    better on digital than film.

    I have the 28-105 as a travel/convenience lens. f11 helps a lot. Wide
    open is pretty soft, especially at the wide end. I suspect they vary a
    bit.
     
    Bruce Graham, Apr 13, 2004
    #12
  13. Scott

    Timo Labrenz Guest

    Yes. Actually, it can be an advantage to have bigger filters right from
    the start, although you don't really need them, yet. For example, I
    want to replace my zoom by the 1.4/50mm and a wide angle lens as soon
    as I can afford it. I might end up with the 2.8/24mm because my filters
    will fit, although I'd prefer another lens...
    LOL :) Thanks a lot.

    Timo
     
    Timo Labrenz, Apr 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Scott

    Frank Pittel Guest

    That's a good question. Let me just say that I've had the 28-105 for a number
    of years and am very fond of it. It's agood lens with good sharpness and
    contrast. About a year and a half ago I gor the 28-135 when I got a second
    Canon EOS body. The idea was that I would put a lens on each of the bodies
    and go with my primes when I needed them. After a few months I use the 28-135
    on both bodies and keep the 28-105 as a spare.


    : Hi everyone,

    : Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that the
    : 28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6, I of
    : course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    : Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies, but
    : what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the same? I'm
    : only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    : mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)

    : Thanks
    : Scott



    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Apr 16, 2004
    #14
  15. Scott

    rob Guest

    Hi

    I checked Canon's MTF charts (in EF Lens Works III book) for both lenses and
    it appears the 28-105 is actually a slightly better lens.
    Did you know there are 2 versions of the 28-105? A f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6?
    Between the 28-105's the f/4-5.6 appears to be the better one.

    Rob


    In message <> - Frank Pittel
    :>
    :>That's a good question. Let me just say that I've had the 28-105 for a number
    :>of years and am very fond of it. It's agood lens with good sharpness and
    :>contrast. About a year and a half ago I gor the 28-135 when I got a second
    :>Canon EOS body. The idea was that I would put a lens on each of the bodies
    :>and go with my primes when I needed them. After a few months I use the 28-135
    :>on both bodies and keep the 28-105 as a spare.
    :>
    :>
    :>: Hi everyone,
    :>
    :>: Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that the
    :>: 28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6, I of
    :>: course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    :>: Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies, but
    :>: what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the same? I'm
    :>: only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    :>: mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)
    :>
    :>: Thanks
    :>: Scott
    :>
    :>
    :>
    :>--
    :>
    :>
    :>
    :>
    :>Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    :>-------------------
    :>
     
    rob, Apr 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Scott

    rob Guest

    hmmm... a frend of mine has an older edition of Lens Works.
    I'll have to borrow it and compare the charts between the editions, maybe
    there's been a misprint.

    Rob

    In message <[email protected]> - "Skip M"
    :>
    :>Are you sure you're reading those charts right? I haven't seen Lens Works
    :>III, only an older one, but in that one the 28-135 was the better lens, the
    :>28-105 f4-5.6 wasn't in it, but that one is a glorified "kit" lens, clearly,
    :>by all reports, inferior to the f3.5-4.5 version.
    :>
    :>--
    :>Skip Middleton
    :>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    :>:>> Hi
    :>>
    :>> I checked Canon's MTF charts (in EF Lens Works III book) for both lenses
    :>and
    :>> it appears the 28-105 is actually a slightly better lens.
    :>> Did you know there are 2 versions of the 28-105? A f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6?
    :>> Between the 28-105's the f/4-5.6 appears to be the better one.
    :>>
    :>> Rob
    :>>
    :>>
    :>> In message <> - Frank Pittel
    :>> :>
    :>> :>That's a good question. Let me just say that I've had the 28-105 for a
    :>number
    :>> :>of years and am very fond of it. It's agood lens with good sharpness and
    :>> :>contrast. About a year and a half ago I gor the 28-135 when I got a
    :>second
    :>> :>Canon EOS body. The idea was that I would put a lens on each of the
    :>bodies
    :>> :>and go with my primes when I needed them. After a few months I use the
    :>28-135
    :>> :>on both bodies and keep the 28-105 as a spare.
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>: Hi everyone,
    :>> :>
    :>> :>: Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that
    :>the
    :>> :>: 28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6,
    :>I of
    :>> :>: course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    :>> :>: Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies,
    :>but
    :>> :>: what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the
    :>same? I'm
    :>> :>: only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    :>> :>: mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)
    :>> :>
    :>> :>: Thanks
    :>> :>: Scott
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>--
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>
    :>> :>Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    :>> :>-------------------
    :>> :>
    :>>
    :>>
    :>>
    :>>
    :>
    :>
     
    rob, Apr 17, 2004
    #16
  17. Scott

    Skip M Guest

    Are you sure you're reading those charts right? I haven't seen Lens Works
    III, only an older one, but in that one the 28-135 was the better lens, the
    28-105 f4-5.6 wasn't in it, but that one is a glorified "kit" lens, clearly,
    by all reports, inferior to the f3.5-4.5 version.
     
    Skip M, Apr 17, 2004
    #17
  18. Scott

    rob Guest

    Bob Atkins has a good page comparing the 28-90/105/135 lenses at:

    http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/28zooms.html


    In message <> -
    (rob) writes:
    :>
    :>hmmm... a frend of mine has an older edition of Lens Works.
    :>I'll have to borrow it and compare the charts between the editions, maybe
    :>there's been a misprint.
    :>
    :>Rob
    :>
    :>In message <[email protected]> - "Skip M"
    :>:>
    :>:>Are you sure you're reading those charts right? I haven't seen Lens Works
    :>:>III, only an older one, but in that one the 28-135 was the better lens, the
    :>:>28-105 f4-5.6 wasn't in it, but that one is a glorified "kit" lens, clearly,
    :>:>by all reports, inferior to the f3.5-4.5 version.
    :>:>
    :>:>--
    :>:>Skip Middleton
    :>:>http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    :>:>:>:>> Hi
    :>:>>
    :>:>> I checked Canon's MTF charts (in EF Lens Works III book) for both lenses
    :>:>and
    :>:>> it appears the 28-105 is actually a slightly better lens.
    :>:>> Did you know there are 2 versions of the 28-105? A f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6?
    :>:>> Between the 28-105's the f/4-5.6 appears to be the better one.
    :>:>>
    :>:>> Rob
    :>:>>
    :>:>>
    :>:>> In message <> - Frank Pittel
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>That's a good question. Let me just say that I've had the 28-105 for a
    :>:>number
    :>:>> :>of years and am very fond of it. It's agood lens with good sharpness and
    :>:>> :>contrast. About a year and a half ago I gor the 28-135 when I got a
    :>:>second
    :>:>> :>Canon EOS body. The idea was that I would put a lens on each of the
    :>:>bodies
    :>:>> :>and go with my primes when I needed them. After a few months I use the
    :>:>28-135
    :>:>> :>on both bodies and keep the 28-105 as a spare.
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>: Hi everyone,
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>: Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that
    :>:>the
    :>:>> :>: 28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6,
    :>:>I of
    :>:>> :>: course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    :>:>> :>: Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies,
    :>:>but
    :>:>> :>: what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the
    :>:>same? I'm
    :>:>> :>: only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    :>:>> :>: mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>: Thanks
    :>:>> :>: Scott
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>--
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>> :>Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    :>:>> :>-------------------
    :>:>> :>
    :>:>>
    :>:>>
    :>:>>
    :>:>>
    :>:>
    :>:>
    :>
    :>
    :>
    :>
     
    rob, Apr 17, 2004
    #18
  19. Scott

    Skip M Guest

    Kinda backs up what I said, doesn't it?
     
    Skip M, Apr 18, 2004
    #19
  20. Scott

    Frank Pittel Guest

    : Are you sure you're reading those charts right? I haven't seen Lens Works
    : III, only an older one, but in that one the 28-135 was the better lens, the
    : 28-105 f4-5.6 wasn't in it, but that one is a glorified "kit" lens, clearly,
    : by all reports, inferior to the f3.5-4.5 version.

    I've also understood that the 28-105 4.5-5.6 was a kit lens. As far as the
    comparison between the 28-105 and the 28-135 is concerned I don't know
    about slight differences in MTF charts. As far as I can tell the image
    quality is the same. I like the little bit of extra zoom and the IS. Then
    again my favorite lens is my Rodenstock 150mm!!


    : --
    : Skip Middleton
    : http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    : : > Hi
    : >
    : > I checked Canon's MTF charts (in EF Lens Works III book) for both lenses
    : and
    : > it appears the 28-105 is actually a slightly better lens.
    : > Did you know there are 2 versions of the 28-105? A f/3.5-4.5 & f/4-5.6?
    : > Between the 28-105's the f/4-5.6 appears to be the better one.
    : >
    : > Rob
    : >
    : >
    : > In message <> - Frank Pittel
    : > :>
    : > :>That's a good question. Let me just say that I've had the 28-105 for a
    : number
    : > :>of years and am very fond of it. It's agood lens with good sharpness and
    : > :>contrast. About a year and a half ago I gor the 28-135 when I got a
    : second
    : > :>Canon EOS body. The idea was that I would put a lens on each of the
    : bodies
    : > :>and go with my primes when I needed them. After a few months I use the
    : 28-135
    : > :>on both bodies and keep the 28-105 as a spare.
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>: Hi everyone,
    : > :>
    : > :>: Well, I'm in a standard photography dilemma. Having decided that
    : the
    : > :>: 28-105 3.5-4.5 is the much better choice rather than the 28-105 4-5.6,
    : I of
    : > :>: course am now wondering at the next step, the 28-135 IS vs. 28-105?
    : > :>: Obviously the IS allows more options with speed and all that implies,
    : but
    : > :>: what about image quality? A lot better than the 105 or about the
    : same? I'm
    : > :>: only glad there isn't one above that to consider! (If there is, don't
    : > :>: mention it; I can barely afford the IS :)
    : > :>
    : > :>: Thanks
    : > :>: Scott
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>--
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>
    : > :>Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
    : > :>-------------------
    : > :>
    : >
    : >
    : >
    : >



    --




    Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
     
    Frank Pittel, Apr 20, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.