Topic: 28-135 vs 24-105 (Read 7017 times)

saiine · « **on:** January 06, 2006, 01:57:15 pm »

Looking into one of these. I've been told they are uncomparable, however I shot with a friend of mine's 28-135 on my rebel xt and it wasn't terrible at all. At 1/500 @ f8 it displayed some slight blur in parts of the image for some reason.

I only had my 17-40 L to compare it against, I tried to keep both focal lengths are 40 to make it as close as I could.

Ideally I'd have both lenses (28-135 and 24-105) on a tripod shooting identical frames. I do know luminous has this EXACT comparison and the details are definitely more precise in the 24-105 L.

However, I hear so much about how great L glass is, and more then the quality of the image I noticed a quality of the lens itself with my L over the non L. The motion to turn the focus was smoother, the lens felt heavier and sturdier. I also have read they have some weatherproofing in them.

I'm looking for honest opinions on people whom have used both. The local camera shop basically bashed the 28-135 saying they're hard to get now and being replaced. There ofcourse is a 750 dollar difference between the lenses though, and that's why I want everyones opinion.

Please be as technical as you'd like

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #1 on:** January 06, 2006, 02:24:26 pm »

The big difference in optical quality is going to be seen on a full frame camera -- your Digital Rebel crops to the sweetest spots (optically) in both lenses, and I expect both will be essentially as good as the sensor in this region, so there is probably not going to be a lot of difference between them. Build-quality is obviously a different story.

saiine · « **Reply #2 on:** January 06, 2006, 02:30:36 pm »

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24vs28.shtml

That's the article in reference, thanks for your reply Jack. I definitely see the quality difference in the shrubbery and bricks in that example and hopefully will post one of my own up eventually. Thanks again!

Quote

The big difference in optical quality is going to be seen on a full frame camera -- your Digital Rebel crops to the sweetest spots (optically) in both lenses, and I expect both will be essentially as good as the sensor in this region, so there is probably not going to be a lot of difference between them. Build-quality is obviously a different story.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #3 on:** January 06, 2006, 03:43:27 pm »

FWIW --

Keep in mind Mark's test above was performed on a Full-frame camera, so you need to crop the centers out of the posted images for judging performance on your DRebel...

saiine · « **Reply #4 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:25:24 pm »

Hey Jack, what do you mean by crop out the center?

Quote

FWIW --

Keep in mind Mark's test above was performed on a Full-frame camera, so you need to crop the centers out of the posted images for judging performance on your DRebel...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=55377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack Flesher · « **Reply #5 on:** January 06, 2006, 04:51:03 pm »

The DRebel has a sensor that is smaller than the 1Ds sensor. In other words it fits inside the frame of the 1Ds. Thus it only "sees" through the central portion of any lens you mount on it.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #6 on:** January 07, 2006, 09:19:29 pm »

The 28~135 IS lens is a very satisfactory performer, good value for money and shouldn't be knocked. I seriously doubt this lens will become hard to buy any time soon. Having bought the 24~105 I'm not planning to sell my 28~135 - it is like having a spare pair of eyeglasses, just in case. But it isn't an "L". I have now made about 2500 photographs with my 24~105 L and I think the one I have is the sharpest lens I've ever used (of course for that to mean anything you'd have to know what else I've used - but seriously I just keep marveling about the detail I see with this lens). It's rendition of detail is astounding. But there is subtle variability in quality from one piece to the next, so whatever lens you decide on, buy it from a shop that lets you test and exchange to your satisfaction.

Yakim Peled · « **Reply #7 on:** January 08, 2006, 04:36:45 am »

If I'd constantly shoot at f/8-11 with my 28-135 I would not bother to upgrade.

jani · « **Reply #8 on:** January 08, 2006, 09:11:47 am »

Well, here's one test I did with my sample of the 28-135 while I had it:

200% crops: left - right

The image was taken at 28mm, f/11, 1/320s at ISO 100 with the EOS 20D.

The CA seen in the crops is noticeable in A4-sized prints unless corrected, but correction is fairly easy.

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2006, 09:46:23 am »

Yakim and Jack - yes if you only shoot at f/8-11 and you only use the center portion of the image it would be hard to justify spending the extra 850 dollars on the L lens. On the contrary, it becomes more of a decision to make when you shoot full frame (Canon 1Ds, 1DsII and 5D) OR if you want sharp undistorted photographs over most of the frame at apertures below f/8, which happens to me frequently.

Jan, I'm not a professional lens tester, but some properly applied imaging principles take one a long way and would suggest those photographs you offer above are not ideal for testing a lens. The criteria for the subject matter should include straight lines, sharp edges, fine surface detail, and a wide range of tonal variation all sufficient to evaluate distortion, egde rendition, detail rendition, and handling of contrast from corner to corner and border to border. That is how I selected the subject matter for my comparison test published on this website. Also blowing an image to 200% is not useful - at that magnification it becomes difficult to distinguish between lens quality issues and pixelation. Your testing material should be good enough to reveal what you need to know on your monitor at discrete intervals of 25%, 50% and 75% magnification, at which values aliasing of the monitor image and pixelation do not obscure inherent image detail. An A3 print at no less than 240 PPI native resolution should do the same in print.

jani · « **Reply #10 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:26:41 am »

Quote

Jan, I'm not a professional lens tester, but some properly applied imaging principles take one a long way and would suggest those photographs you offer above are not ideal for testing a lens. The criteria for the subject matter should include straight lines, sharp edges,

The photograph (not photographs, it's just one) has the straight lines and sharp edges necessary to show the CA.

Quote

fine surface detail, and a wide range of tonal variation all sufficient to evaluate distortion, egde rendition, detail rendition, and handling of contrast from corner to corner and border to border.

I quite agree. My test was more of an informal one; because the CA was an issue that bothered me in other photos, that's what I wanted to show. The purpose of posting it here was to show that CA can appear within the sweet spot range of f/8 to f/11 at 28mm, even with a DX-sized sensor.

Quote

That is how I selected the subject matter for my comparison test published on this website. Also blowing an image to 200% is not useful - at that magnification it becomes difficult to distinguish between lens quality issues and pixelation. Your testing material should be good enough to reveal what you need to know on your monitor at discrete intervals of 25%, 50% and 75% magnification, at which values aliasing of the monitor image and pixelation do not obscure inherent image detail. An A3 print at no less than 240 PPI native resolution should do the same in print.

As I mentioned, it is noticeable even in an A4 print; there is no need to print to A3 to see more of the same. In an A5 print, the CA appears as slightly blurry edges, but you probably have to look closely to notice. Of course, that's what people tend to do with such smaller prints.

While I agree with your criticism of the methods used, there is very little I can do about it a year later; as I stated, I no longer own this lens, and I can't do methodical testing with it.

If you're really interested, I'll fetch the original and post various magnifications (100%, 75%, 50%, whatever is your heart's desire ...).

Mark D Segal · « **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2006, 07:47:37 am »

Thanks Jan - no need to bother - at least for my benefit - I know the story on that lens. And re the CA - yes of course your shot clearly shows it.

Cheers

Mark

JKSeidel · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2006, 11:55:42 pm »

The 24-105mm also has the latest version of IS. The 28-135mm has a much earlier version. Terminology seems to vary in regards to Canon's IS revisions, but I believe the 28-135mm has version 1.0. I don't think it has what I've seen called version 1.5 (essentially pan support). While I'll agree that any IS is nice, the much newer 24-105mm has IS that is much improved over the 28-135mm. This can be a real plus when considering a lens for 'walk-around' usage.

Author Topic: 28-135 vs 24-105 (Read 7017 times)