Interesting comparison of the classic Canon 28-135 IS with the new24-105 F/4L IS

Discussion in 'Canon' started by ThomasH, Oct 7, 2005.

  1. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    Probably one of the best things from Canon was their affordable
    (non L) lens 28-135mm IS, with optical properties damn close to
    the L class, but with a price tag significantly below any L glass.
    This is an interesting shootout between this old lens and the
    recent pricey 24-105mm F/4L IS...

    Nice little lens! I guess Canon keeps topping itself again and
    again... for a price, that is.

    ThomasH, Oct 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Last June, I bought an EOS30V. I found one s/h at such an attractive price
    that I didn't argue about taking the kit lens, an EF 28-105 f4-5.6, with
    it - despite normally relying on a good collection of prime lenses.
    If you want to see and handle a "toy" zoom, this is it, and I was not
    expecting anything special from its performance. Following the results on
    the light box (and through a top quality 8x loupe) from my first film,
    Provia 100F, where it was in comparison with my EF 20 f2.8 and other primes,
    my "toy zoom" has had many outings, and I'm impressed by its combination of
    features. Now that winter is approaching, I expect I'll use my wider
    aperture lenses more, but the small 28-105 was a pleasant surprise. (I also
    have the 28-136 IS.)
    Malcolm Stewart, Oct 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. ThomasH

    DD (Rox) Guest

    Are you crazy? That 28-135mm lens isn't even 25% of L glass quality.
    It's junk, along with the rest of the Canon consumer zooms.
    DD (Rox), Oct 7, 2005
  4. ThomasH

    Skip M Guest

    Stick to what you know, Dallas. That lens is not junk, and I have a feeling
    you're very well aware of that. We have two examples of that lens, and,
    while not as good as our 24-70L lenses, probably is about 65-70% of the
    Skip M, Oct 7, 2005
  5. ThomasH

    Annika1980 Guest

    Are you crazy? That 28-135mm lens isn't even 25% of L glass quality.
    What that old saying ... "Better to remain silent and be considered a
    fool rather than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
    Annika1980, Oct 7, 2005
  6. ThomasH

    Kinon O'Cann Guest

    Please. Have you ever shot with one? It's a very good/excellent optic that
    only average mechanically, but a very nice lens.
    Kinon O'Cann, Oct 7, 2005
  7. ThomasH

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Thanks very much, Thomas. The important parts for me:
    "at 105mm hard to see any difference"
    "at 28mm and 50mm sharpness difference is obvious even at f/8"
    "f/4 instead of f/5.6"
    and, not mentioned in the article, it takes size 77 filters.

    Hate to say it, the 28-105 isn't as good as partisans claim it is.
    But the 28-135 really is quite an excellent lens. Minolta made
    a 28-135 that is a bit sharper optically but much less flexible
    (for instance, 150 instead of 50cm close focus).
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 7, 2005
  8. ThomasH

    ian lincoln Guest

    Focusing in low light at the long end gives you an extra stop of light.
    ian lincoln, Oct 7, 2005
  9. ThomasH

    Bruce Graham Guest

    As you know, everybody bags this lens and I wonder if many of the
    voval critics in this group have actually tested it. I have no
    experience of it, and don't intend to buy it, but when it came out I
    looked at the MTF curves supplied by Canon and was surprised to see it
    should be sharper, with more contrast (on axis) than its f3.5-4.5
    predecessor, but it was worse once you got some way off axis. Maybe those
    curves are accurate (at least for a good one)??
    Bruce Graham, Oct 8, 2005
  10. ThomasH

    ThomasH Guest

    I think that everybody said this here... Lets add some numbers for DD!

    I know that photodo is dormant for a long
    time, but their test results are still valid. The grade of the
    28-135 mm Canon was:

    Grade: 3.5 35mm/AF Canon EF 28-135/3,5-5,6 IS USM

    This is damn good! Many L class lenses came around the same grade
    in these tests, for example the 28-80 f/2.8-4 L became 3.8, and
    the vastly popular 100-400 L lens:

    Grade: 3.6 35mm/AF Canon EF 100-400/4,5-5,6L IS USM

    This 28-135 lens scored similarly high with virtually all tests.
    Previously on
    Klaus Schroif maintained an average test grade calculated from
    grades given to lenses by photo magazine tests, however I cannot
    find it now... In this table the 28-135 had a similarly high

    Anyway, everybody who uses the 28-135 knows that optically it is
    a damn good lens. "Prosumer class", not perfect, plasticky filling.
    Mine has very jerky creep, but it is a sharp lens with virtually
    no vignetting and it has only minimal distortions on both ends.
    Compared to this lens, a similar "prosumer" class Nikkor 24-80
    F/2.8-4 does not stand a chance.

    ThomasH, Oct 8, 2005
  11. ThomasH

    Mark² Guest

    I have used the 28-135 IS for years, and although I recently bought the
    24-70 to use in its place, the 28-135 is no slouch. In fact, it's a fine
    lens that outperforms most normal zooms that don't cost a mint. Add IS to
    that, and its a real winner, and incredible value.

    You are quickly becoming a crazed, brand-worshipping lunatic, who is
    abandoning all reason and insight in the name of your anti-Canon drooling.

    Other than that, you're not a bad guy. :)
    Mark², Oct 8, 2005
  12. ThomasH

    Bill Tuthill Guest tested both 28-105 and 28-135 so you can look at the graphs
    yourself. I would not say the 28-135 is less sharp in the corners.
    It is much better wide-open than the 28-105, mostly.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 10, 2005
  13. $ tested both 28-105 and 28-135 so you can look at the graphs
    $yourself. I would not say the 28-135 is less sharp in the corners.
    $It is much better wide-open than the 28-105, mostly.

    I owned both the 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM and 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM.
    I did the usual quick test (stick a newspaper to the wall) with them.
    It's not a perfect test, and of course can only reflect the sample
    of each lens which I owned (so you could do the same test with other
    samples and perhaps get different results). I found the 28-135
    to be the better of the two, overall (though the 28-135 didn't win
    everywhere, it won more than it lost).[/QUOTE]
    Stephen M. Dunn, Oct 10, 2005
  14. ThomasH

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Interesting that your test did not reveal sharper corners with the
    28-105 than with the 28-135. 'Twas the other way around, contrary to
    Canon MTF charts.

    Other than slightly more geometric distortion with the 28-135 IS,
    where did the 28-105 win? You made it sound like these lenses were
    more evenly matched than your test results show.
    Bill Tuthill, Oct 11, 2005
    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.