28-135 to 24-105

[jimhuber]

Like many, I have a 28-135 IS zoom lens in my bag. Like all the others, I've contemplated upgrading to the 24-105L. But then there were flare problems, and a recall. Then many said their replacement lens wasn't as good as the first one - some even swapping back.

I was happy with my 28-135 until this past weekend, when it let me down. Testing afterward has revealed that the left side is blurry, more so at larger apertures and less so at smaller apertures (yes, I cleaned it). So do I have the 28-135 repaired, or upgrade to the 24-105L? Obviously the upgrade is a lot more expensive, probably ten times as much as a repair, but I had considered it anyway. Now I just have a compelling reason.

So those of you who have upgraded, I ask: was it worth it? Would you upgrade again?

I thought I'd be losing a bit of telephoto "reach", but my testing has shown that the long end of the 28-135 is just barely "closer" than the 100mm f/2.8 macro, and not nearly as "close" as the 135mm f/2 when changing lenses but not moving the tripod. Has anyone compared telephoto coverage of the 24-105 versus the 28-135? I suspect I may not lose anything at the telephoto end, but gain substantially at the long end (28 vs 24 mm).

Thanks in advance,

Jim

[wilsonrob]

I would definately do it again. The 24-105 is a much better lens and theIS works better as well.

[gochugogi]

Testing afterward has revealed that the left side is blurry, more so at larger apertures and less so at smaller apertures (yes, I cleaned it).[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64195\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sounds like you need to have the elements aligned. I had an EF 70-200 4L USM that was blurry only on the left side. It was fine when new but drifted off after 2 years of light use (never dropped or banged). It costs about $150 if out of warranty.

I have a 1999 EF 28-135 IS USM and it's fine. I've been thinking about upgrading to the EF 24-105 IS but I've heard the optical gains are small (although build and IS are much better). I guess it depends on the sample you get...

[Dinsmen]

An article on this site by Mark Segal, that compares these two lenses, might be helpful.

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

[budjames]

I purchased the 24-105 IS as an upgrade to my 28-135 IS.

After shooting about 300 images around the house, inside and outside, with and without flash on my 20D and 1DsMkII bodies, there is not an acceptably sharp image in the whole bunch. I got a bad example, I presume.

Images shot with the 28-135 were much better by comparison.

Tomorrow the 24-105 lens is being shipped off to Canon for warranty calibration. It the same price, but faster, then returning the lens to NewEgg.com for a replacement.

I'm bummed, especially since I already made a committment to sell my 28-135 lens.

Bud James
North Wales, PA

[boku]

I purchased the 24-105 IS as an upgrade to my 28-135 IS.

After shooting about 300 images around the house, inside and outside, with and without flash on my 20D and 1DsMkII bodies, there is not an acceptably sharp image in the whole bunch. I got a bad example, I presume.

Images shot with the 28-135 were much better by comparison.

Tomorrow the 24-105 lens is being shipped off to Canon for warranty calibration. It the same price, but faster, then returning the lens to NewEgg.com for a replacement.

I'm bummed, especially since I already made a committment to sell my 28-135 lens.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64738\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You know, this situation makes me wonder. Many people think like you do. They buy a product, it is defective out of the box, and they feel OK by letting the manufacturer jimmy with it to improve it. They feel bad, but never consider a strong move against the manufacturer that is perpetrating crap on the docile public.

If no one did what you did, Canon would not ship "bad examples." We are facilitating them in their QA mediocrity by accepting defective deliveries and having new product repaired.

I bought the 24-105 IS L. It was an optical POS in every respect. Canon gave me a run around and dragged their feet for a month. In the end, the store that sold me the lens (OneCall) exchanged it for a 24-70 L. Shame on Canon, but they get away with it because we allow them to do "warranty calibration" while we wait for return on our investment.

I hope this route works for you. Many people are pleased with the 24-105. Not me. Wild horses couldn't make me feel good about that lens or Canon's manipulation of the situation.

I wonder who wound up with my recycled 24-105?

I still shoot Canon, but I am under no illusion - the make some lemons - too many. I suspect the other brands are the same. MR's new 'blad zoom fell apart in Africa. When I was coming up, they told me Hasselblad stuff was so expensive because it was the highest quality.

Consumer hesitance to insist is the reason quality is decreasing.

[Yakim Peled]

I have not upgraded but if I were interested is a midrange zoom, the 24-105 would be the one I'd get.

HTH.

[budjames]

Boku,

Strong words you have.

The reality is that is what a warranty is for. I've been a Canon user since buying my first Canon FTb 35mm SLR back in 1973. This is the first situation where I had issues out of the box.

I'll let Canon do their thing and see how the lens performs. They are made by humans, remember. The superb technology and high quality of Canon compels me to give them a shot a making it right.

Banterings in forums like this that make no point or offer solutions are a waste of time. The writer's and the reader's time.

Flame me if you like, but first imagine if there was no Canon. I wish that all of the cars that I have ever purchased worked as well as my Canon equipment.

Bud

You know, this situation makes me wonder. Many people think like you do. They buy a product, it is defective out of the box, and they feel OK by letting the manufacturer jimmy with it to improve it. They feel bad, but never consider a strong move against the manufacturer that is perpetrating crap on the docile public.

If no one did what you did, Canon would not ship "bad examples." We are facilitating them in their QA mediocrity by accepting defective deliveries and having new product repaired.

I bought the 24-105 IS L. It was an optical POS in every respect. Canon gave me a run around and dragged their feet for a month. In the end, the store that sold me the lens (OneCall) exchanged it for a 24-70 L. Shame on Canon, but they get away with it because we allow them to do "warranty calibration" while we wait for return on our investment.

I hope this route works for you. Many people are pleased with the 24-105. Not me. Wild horses couldn't make me feel good about that lens or Canon's manipulation of the situation.

I wonder who wound up with my recycled 24-105?

I still shoot Canon, but I am under no illusion - the make some lemons - too many. I suspect the other brands are the same. MR's new 'blad zoom fell apart in Africa. When I was coming up, they told me Hasselblad stuff was so expensive because it was the highest quality.

Consumer hesitance to insist is the reason quality is decreasing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64745\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[jani]

You know, this situation makes me wonder. Many people think like you do. They buy a product, it is defective out of the box, and they feel OK by letting the manufacturer jimmy with it to improve it. They feel bad, but never consider a strong move against the manufacturer that is perpetrating crap on the docile public.

If no one did what you did, Canon would not ship "bad examples." We are facilitating them in their QA mediocrity by accepting defective deliveries and having new product repaired.

I disagree.

Warranty repairs cost Canon time and money, too.

If I'd been the betting kind, I'd have bet you a brand new lens that Canon much prefers not to do warranty repairs over doing them.

It might be a cynical financial evaluation behind all this, and that Canon has a nice table with pros & cons:

Pro:

 - less QC expenses, greater net
 - not everybody will turn their lenses in for repair, but think it's okay

Cons:

 - repair expenses, far higher per sample than the QC process per sample
 - loss of reputation and future customers

etc.

The solution is for people send their lenses in for warranty repair at even small hints that something is wrong, regardless of whether they're Canon or Nikon customers.

For instance, I had all my lenses and my camera in for service last year, within the warranty period.

(Norwegian consumers have an even better deal; five years against manufacturing defects -- obvious or hidden -- by law. Too bad consumer rights aren't transferable to professionals.)

[budjames]

Okay,l that said, what's your suggestion when you get a defective new lens?

Bud

I disagree.

Warranty repairs cost Canon time and money, too.

If I'd been the betting kind, I'd have bet you a brand new lens that Canon much prefers not to do warranty repairs over doing them.

It might be a cynical financial evaluation behind all this, and that Canon has a nice table with pros & cons:

Pro:

 - less QC expenses, greater net
 - not everybody will turn their lenses in for repair, but think it's okay

Cons:

 - repair expenses, far higher per sample than the QC process per sample
 - loss of reputation and future customers

etc.

The solution is for people send their lenses in for warranty repair at even small hints that something is wrong, regardless of whether they're Canon or Nikon customers.

For instance, I had all my lenses and my camera in for service last year, within the warranty period.

(Norwegian consumers have an even better deal; five years against manufacturing defects -- obvious or hidden -- by law. Too bad consumer rights aren't transferable to professionals.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65080\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[boku]

Okay,l that said, what's your suggestion when you get a defective new lens?

Err, return it for credit? Exchange it for another?

My preferrence is not to have it serviced if it is new right out of the box.

[gochugogi]

Well I bought the 24-105 4L and have been shooting with it for a couple weeks. Maybe I'm lucky, but I got a dust-free 5D and a sharp as a whip 24-105 L. My 28-135 IS paled before it at F4 and 5.6 so I sold it at FM last week. In fact the 24-105 is better than I had hoped for as it's extremely sharp wide open. At 50mm F4 it's better than my 50 1.4 USM. I've heard so much complaining about the 5D and 24-105 L on forums I was half believing they were both utter doggie doo.

So, yeah, the upgrade was well worth it. I sold the 28-135 IS for $350 and have a $50 rebate coming, so I consider the $850 well spent. Now I have to start hitting the gym as the 5D/Big Ed 4 and 24-105 L puts a bit of a dent in my shoulder compared to the Elan 7/24-85 USM I used to travel with.

[jani]

Okay,l that said, what's your suggestion when you get a defective new lens?

Make it cost money for Canon.

[AdrianW]

I upgraded my 28-135 for a (post-recall) 24-105, and I'm very glad I did.

My 24-105 is noticeably sharper than the two 28-135 that I have access to wide open, and still visibly sharper across the rest of the aperture range. The only area where things could be better is CA, but that's easily fixable in CRAW, so I'm not too worried about that...

The 24-105 is also better for closeup work - it's not going to replace my 100mm macro lens, but I do think it's an ideal walkaround lens.

However, my question for you is - do you usually find yourself more at the wide end or the telephoto end of the 28-135? If you're usually bumping against the wide-angle limit, then definitely upgrade - but if you're usually shooting at 135 then possibly something like the 70-200 f4/L would be a better choice.

P.S. I'm basing my sharpness results on tripod/mlu testing, as well as handheld shots (hence the IS). I'm using an EOS 10D @ ISO100.

[budjames]

I already own the 100-400 IS L, 70-200 IS f2.8 L, 24-70 f2.8L and 100 macro.

The 24-105 replaces my 28-135 IS lens as the walkabout lens for my 20D. I also own a 1DsMkII.

Bud

I upgraded my 28-135 for a (post-recall) 24-105, and I'm very glad I did.

My 24-105 is noticeably sharper than the two 28-135 that I have access to wide open, and still visibly sharper across the rest of the aperture range. The only area where things could be better is CA, but that's easily fixable in CRAW, so I'm not too worried about that...

The 24-105 is also better for closeup work - it's not going to replace my 100mm macro lens, but I do think it's an ideal walkaround lens.

However, my question for you is - do you usually find yourself more at the wide end or the telephoto end of the 28-135? If you're usually bumping against the wide-angle limit, then definitely upgrade - but if you're usually shooting at 135 then possibly something like the 70-200 f4/L would be a better choice.

P.S. I'm basing my sharpness results on tripod/mlu testing, as well as handheld shots (hence the IS). I'm using an EOS 10D @ ISO100.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=65707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[gochugogi]

However, my question for you is - do you usually find yourself more at the wide end or the telephoto end of the 28-135? If you're usually bumping against the wide-angle limit, then definitely upgrade - but if you're usually shooting at 135 then possibly something like the 70-200 f4/L would be a better choice.

I find myself in the middle most of the time, but it's nice to have a little padding on both sides should you need it.

[John Mason]

I have both lenses and the 24-105 with it's newer IS is just the perfect travel lens.  I tested mine extensively on a bookcase to the 28-135 and my 50mm macro for grins and it was notciable sharper than the 28-135.  The IS is more effective as well.

DXO now supports the 24-105 with the 1dsmkii combination which corrects what abberations it has at the wide end.  The extra 4mm really is quite a bit more angle of view or fun for close up face shots.

Focusing is faster than the 28-135 as well.

[Yakim Peled]

>> Well I bought the 24-105 4L and have been shooting with it for a couple weeks. Maybe I'm lucky, but I got a dust-free 5D and a sharp as a whip 24-105 L.

Peter, I look forward to read your reviews on both.

[jimhuber]

Getting back to why I started this thread...

I guess I'm just too stubborn or cheap to upgrade to the 24-105 L. I sent my 28-135 off to Canon and had it repaired. It's still the same "good but not great" 28-135 I recall. At least it's symmetrical again instead of the left side being blurred.

Really I'm quite satisfied with the center of this lens, and on my Rebel XT I don't hesitate to use it at any aperture. Purchasing a 5D revealed it's shortcomings, though: the edges are not great, and the corners are pretty dismal wide open. So I decided to try the free evaluation copy of DxO Optics Pro 3.5 for a 5D with 28-135 lens.

I had test frames of a bookshelf from when the lens came back, so I ran five of the wide open frames, each at a different focal length, through DxO. I settled on using 28mm for a fair test since I would have to correct some obvious barrel distortion in Photoshop. DxO would be correcting it for me. I left all of the DxO adjustments at default/auto and had it output to DNG. I then set the white balance the same between the DxO and non-DxO images, turned off sharpening and noise reduction in ACR (set to 0), corrected vignetting in the non-DxO file in ACR, and opened the files in Photoshop. The non-DxO file I then corrected the barrel distortion on (Filter>Distort>Lens Correction) and cropped it back to rectangular. Then both files had Photokit Sharpener capture sharpening applied, then output sharpening for inkjet glossy at 240 PPI (which the files were sized at to print about 12x18 inches), and printed.

Well, I had to repeat the procedure three more times, for the non-DxO frames shot at f/4.0, f/5.6, and f/8.0. Looking strictly at the prints, the center of the frame on the DxO-processed f/3.5 print is definitely much better than the f/4.0 non-DxO file, and really darn close to being as good as the f/5.6 non-DxO center. I'm really splitting hairs here, they're almost indistinguishable (DxO f/3.5 versus non-DxO f/5.6). But here's the kicker: where the 28-135 really has problems, the edges and corners, the DxO processed file looks as good at f/3.5 as the non-DxO processed file that was shot at f/8.0! The DxO-processed f/3.5 file is actually a bit better than the non-DxO f/8 file in the extreme corner. I'm surprised... shocked even.

I know, I should post some crops on the web so everyone can gawk at them, but I'll leave such antics to Michael and the other dedicated reviewers. Feel free to try it yourself for free. I did, and I'll almost certainly be purchasing DxO myself.

Disclaimer: I'm in no way affiliated with DxO, Canon, Michael, or anyone else you've ever heard of. These are just my personal observations.

[KenRexach]

Ive heard/read all the horror stories regarding the variable quality of Canon Lens and the folks who order 2-3 lenses and pick the sharp copy and others who instead send the lens to Canon for calibration 10 times etc etc.

Honestly over the years ive purchased a 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L, 50mm macro, 50mm f1.4, 85mmL new from Canon and they all worked as advertised and shown in the many published tests. The used 24mm TSE and 300mmf4L IS i got used also worked well.

Im a member of CPS but never , thankfully, have needed to use them. I joined as "insurance" in case i got a dud lens or camera.

So, if you got the cash get the 24-105 f4L, seems like an awesome lens to have out and about.