Canon 28-135mm vs. Canon 24-105mm

[Leo]

I've been debating if I should trade-in my Canon 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 lens for a Canon 24-105mm f/4L lens. I don't know if I would be able to tell the difference between these 2 lenses. I need a faster lens, and I am assuming since this is an L lens it would be a faster lens.

Shall I keep my lens or get the L lens?

 

[DSLR noob]

F/4 means that at 24 it is slightly slower than your current lens at 28, but at 105 mm it would be faster than your lens. That end of the telephoto is what matters more anyway, the longer focal length, the faster shutter speed you need, and the faster lens. also being an L lens it should be sharper.

 

[Leo]

F/4 means that at 24 it is slightly slower than your current lens at 28, but at 105 mm it would be faster than your lens. That end of the telephoto is what matters more anyway, the longer focal length, the faster shutter speed you need, and the faster lens. also being an L lens it should be sharper.

thank you for the reply, i understand about the f stops...so when you say that being an L lens it should be sharper.....i am assuming it would be all in focal lengths right?

 

[Big Mike]

'Faster' refers to the maximum aperture of the lens. The 28-135 has a range of maximum aperture F3.5-5.6...while the other lens always has a max of F4. So it's slower on the wide end but faster at the long end.

The main difference in the two lenses is quality. The 28-135 is an average lens both in terms of build quality and image quality. The 24-105 is a professional level 'L' lens and has superb build quality and image quality...and that applies to all focal lengths. Also, the 24-105 is a much newer lens and has a better IS system...which gives you another extra stop of 'hand hold-ability'.

If you want a 'faster' zoom lens. Look at the 24-70 F2.8 L...or another F2.8 lens.

 

[EOS_JD]

the big advantage of the 24-105 f4L is the IS. Image stabalization is a great feature. Sure many prefer the 24-70 f2.8 but I have a 2.8 zoom (Tamron 28-75) and couldn't tell you the last time I used it!

 

[Big Mike]

the big advantage of the 24-105 f4L is the IS. Image stabalization is a great feature. Sure many prefer the 24-70 f2.8 but I have a 2.8 zoom (Tamron 28-75) and couldn't tell you the last time I used it!

The 28-135 has IS as well...but, as I mentioned, it's an older version of it.

Personally, I prefer a faster lens to a slower one with IS. IS, is a great feature that will really help to eliminate blur from camera shake...but it won't do anything to help with subject movement...only a faster shutter speed can do that.

I have a 17-85 F4-5.6 IS...and I find that it doesn't do well, shooting people in low light. That's why I got the 17-50 F2.8

 

[Leo]

Thanks for your replies, BigMike I love that Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, used it Saturday nigth and I just love the f/2.8. But I'm kinda in a dilemna, I don't want to lose my focal length that's why I am kinda leaning on the 28-105mm f/4L lens. But like you said BigMike I also like faster lenses. I don't know, maybe I should just keep my 28-135mm lens and just save up for one of those big guns, the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens.

 

[EOS_JD]

The 28-135 has IS as well...but, as I mentioned, it's an older version of it.

Personally, I prefer a faster lens to a slower one with IS. IS, is a great feature that will really help to eliminate blur from camera shake...but it won't do anything to help with subject movement...only a faster shutter speed can do that.

I have a 17-85 F4-5.6 IS...and I find that it doesn't do well, shooting people in low light. That's why I got the 17-50 F2.8

I see what you say mike and generally I agree however the difference between f4 and f2.8 is one stop. The difference with your 17-85 f4-5.6 and an f2.8 lens is 2 stops so a much bigger difference.

I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and have not used it since I bought my 24-105 f4L IS and I've shot a few weddings with it (although I do use the70-200 f2.8L IS)

For a general lens with good range reasonable speed and wonderful IS the 24-105 is hard to beat. I think I'd still take it over the 24-70 f2.8L!

 

[DSLR noob]

No problem on the fast reply. Yeah if you get the 24-105
f/4L IS and then later in life a 70-200 f/4 L IS. you'd have a huge focal length with razor sharpness, low distortion, low chromatic aberation, basically optically superior lens all at f4 max. It'd be a killer setup.

 

[EOS_JD]

As Mike suggested the killer setup is probably the 2 x f2.8 lenses covering the focal lengths from 24-200mm. The f4 versions are both great options though.... as with everything it's all down to money.