-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
24-85 vs 28-135IS
- Thread starter Anh PD
- Start date
Tillman Kleinhans
Forum Enthusiast
28-135 IS ! It is the most widely used lens in my arsenal - 15-30, 28-135, 100-400, 20 and 85. In fact, I like it so much, I bought a second one for school use! It is great on both the EOS3 and the D60, producing images that both sell and win international salons. It may not be the sharpest of the bunch, but it produces the goods all the way up to 16" x 12"!
I wouldn't be without it.
Tillman Kleinhans
http://www.tkimages.co.uk
I wouldn't be without it.
Tillman Kleinhans
http://www.tkimages.co.uk
Hi,
I owned these both lenses. The 28-135 was not bad, but a bit to big and heavy for daily use. I needed some more wide angle too. So I traded my 28-135 in for a 24-85 and a new world opened up for me!
Sharpness is about the same, allthough the contrast is much better.
I have read more than once in this forum that this lens is as good as 28-70L.
The 28-135 allways seemed to underexpose, but it was not, there simply was no contrast.
Bas
I owned these both lenses. The 28-135 was not bad, but a bit to big and heavy for daily use. I needed some more wide angle too. So I traded my 28-135 in for a 24-85 and a new world opened up for me!
Sharpness is about the same, allthough the contrast is much better.
I have read more than once in this forum that this lens is as good as 28-70L.
The 28-135 allways seemed to underexpose, but it was not, there simply was no contrast.
Bas
No question. I purchased two 28-135 IS' for my D60 and back they went; they underexposed, had lousy AF, poor color/contrast/distortion, and marginal sharpness.
In contrast, the 24-85 offered the extra 4mm on the wide end (huge on the D60), fast AF, excellent color/contrast, virtually no CA/flare, and fairly good sharpness with minimal distortion. Add in its compact size, and you have a winner. My only criticism relates to the chinsy MF knob; small and reversed as opposed to my L lenses.
Here's a link to a couple of photo's I took with the 24-85 (the tree picture is included to demonstrate the lack of CA): http://www.pbase.com/armd/misc_travel
This is a test comparing the 28-135IS vs. a cheap 35-80 lens. As you will see it didn't fare all that well: http://www.pbase.com/armd/canon_2835is_comparison_test
Some people rave about the 28-135 IS and while the IS is great, the copies I had were sub-performers. My best advice is to demo each lens and see which one you like better.
In contrast, the 24-85 offered the extra 4mm on the wide end (huge on the D60), fast AF, excellent color/contrast, virtually no CA/flare, and fairly good sharpness with minimal distortion. Add in its compact size, and you have a winner. My only criticism relates to the chinsy MF knob; small and reversed as opposed to my L lenses.
Here's a link to a couple of photo's I took with the 24-85 (the tree picture is included to demonstrate the lack of CA): http://www.pbase.com/armd/misc_travel
This is a test comparing the 28-135IS vs. a cheap 35-80 lens. As you will see it didn't fare all that well: http://www.pbase.com/armd/canon_2835is_comparison_test
Some people rave about the 28-135 IS and while the IS is great, the copies I had were sub-performers. My best advice is to demo each lens and see which one you like better.
Big Gamma Jamma
Active member
I think the 28-135 is a fine grab shot lens, but I can't use it in the studio because of the contrast/sharpness issues.
If you want to put it on a tripod and photograph brick walls it probably isn't the right lens (zoom?IS?tripod? It even sounds funny). If you just want to carry one lens for general photography the reach to 135 is really nice.
David
If you want to put it on a tripod and photograph brick walls it probably isn't the right lens (zoom?IS?tripod? It even sounds funny). If you just want to carry one lens for general photography the reach to 135 is really nice.
David
Photodo.com lists the 24-85 with 5.02% dist. and the 28-135 at 4.83%.
here is a shot (through a glass window) with the 24-85.
photography is my passion.
here is a shot (through a glass window) with the 24-85.
--
photography is my passion.
here are 2 reviews of the 24-85.........
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page19.asp
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm
photography is my passion.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canond30/page19.asp
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/index.htm
--
photography is my passion.
On the D60, vignetting is not a problem. On a regular 35mm, there are some reports of slight vignetting, but I haven't experienced this. It is my impression that the the 24-85 exhibits less distortion on the wide end than does the 28-135IS, but unfortunately I have never done a side-by-side comparison. Again, the best advice I could offer is to order both lenses from a reputable place (such as B&H) and see which one works better for you. Alternatively, find a good local dealer, bring your camera body and snap a few photos with each.
I am not sure what you mean by this? Photographing brick walls is an inexpensive and handy test which one can use to assess a lens in terms of sharpness, distortion, and exposure consistency. Of course one would want to use a tripod to minimize the influence of hand shake. When doing this test, I turned the IS off as directed. The whole point of performing this comparison was to address my impression that the 28-135IS was an optically marginal lens. I don't have access to resources to perform high quality bench MTF determinations, so this had to suffice.
Originally, I had purchased a copy of a 28-135IS based on recommendations and objective test results from groups such as photodo, however my "real-life" experience was extremely disappointing. I exchanged the lens for another one and it wasn't much better.
If you check out this thread, I have listed 3 more objective tests of the 28-135IS (so you don't have to stare at the walls!) 2 of the 3 suggested that the 28-135IS is a marginal performer. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4325138
Rather than criticising those who make a contribution, why don't you take the time out to perform/post some tests for everyone's benefit?
Originally, I had purchased a copy of a 28-135IS based on recommendations and objective test results from groups such as photodo, however my "real-life" experience was extremely disappointing. I exchanged the lens for another one and it wasn't much better.
If you check out this thread, I have listed 3 more objective tests of the 28-135IS (so you don't have to stare at the walls!) 2 of the 3 suggested that the 28-135IS is a marginal performer. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=4325138
Rather than criticising those who make a contribution, why don't you take the time out to perform/post some tests for everyone's benefit?
while i have the 24-85, and i do confirm great color and contrast, i can honestly say that the 24-85 isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
wide open at the 24mm end and you will see some coma. stopped down a couple clicks and picture quality is great, but you will have a lot slower shutter to deal with.
a better way to go is the 24-70L if you can afford it, and the 70-200 f/4L.
the 24-70 will allow you to shoot in most conditions and yield a clean pic.
the 70-200 will give you great results even at f/4.
photography is my passion.
wide open at the 24mm end and you will see some coma. stopped down a couple clicks and picture quality is great, but you will have a lot slower shutter to deal with.
a better way to go is the 24-70L if you can afford it, and the 70-200 f/4L.
the 24-70 will allow you to shoot in most conditions and yield a clean pic.
the 70-200 will give you great results even at f/4.
--
photography is my passion.
Greg M
Senior Member
It is also my most used lens. I like mine so much that I had bought both the 28-70L and the 24-70L at different times and sent them both back. Yes I prefer the 28-135 IS over both of those lenses. I think that it's range is by far the best of any Canon zoom. Sure it's not as fast as some and not quite as sharp as some but the range and IS make up for any short comings it might have. I have learned to use this lens within it's limits and now I can use it under almost any conditions. I've used it in a pitch black cave and with studio lights.
People review and compare lenses to others unfairly. How much sense does it make to take a magnified small portion of a picture and compare it to another lens? If that's the only way to see the differences then do the differences really matter? Is this the way that real pictures are viewed? Does it really matter if the 24-70L will show the small hairs on your neck and the 28-135 IS won't? Would you ever notice that kind of detail while casually looking at a print? No you don't. The only time that this really matters is if you make large prints. Most people almost never print larger then 8x10. Those small differences in sharpness just don't matter.
It comes down to this. The 24-85 has basically two advantages. It is wider which does make a big difference when used with the D30/60. It is also the consenses that it does have an edge in sharpness and contrast. The sharpness and contrast are easily compensated for in PS so that in print there won't be a difference. The 28-135 IS has basically two advantages also. It's range and IS. These can not be compensated for in PS. You can not take out camera shake in PS and you can not make 85mm look like 135mm without loss. It will look fine at 4x6 but will not look the same at 8x10.
To blame the lens for underexposure is a copout. If you know that in certain situations you'll most likely get an underexposure then compensate for it!
People review and compare lenses to others unfairly. How much sense does it make to take a magnified small portion of a picture and compare it to another lens? If that's the only way to see the differences then do the differences really matter? Is this the way that real pictures are viewed? Does it really matter if the 24-70L will show the small hairs on your neck and the 28-135 IS won't? Would you ever notice that kind of detail while casually looking at a print? No you don't. The only time that this really matters is if you make large prints. Most people almost never print larger then 8x10. Those small differences in sharpness just don't matter.
It comes down to this. The 24-85 has basically two advantages. It is wider which does make a big difference when used with the D30/60. It is also the consenses that it does have an edge in sharpness and contrast. The sharpness and contrast are easily compensated for in PS so that in print there won't be a difference. The 28-135 IS has basically two advantages also. It's range and IS. These can not be compensated for in PS. You can not take out camera shake in PS and you can not make 85mm look like 135mm without loss. It will look fine at 4x6 but will not look the same at 8x10.
To blame the lens for underexposure is a copout. If you know that in certain situations you'll most likely get an underexposure then compensate for it!
Thanks for all your comments. Today I tried to test the 4 lenses at a camera store. They are Canon 24-85, Canon 28-105, Sigma 24-70EX DG f2.8 and Tamron SP 24-135 and the results as I observe:
Canon 24-85: The sharpest one, colors are vivid and very good for Asian skin tone. Distortion at wide angle and slight vigetting (on my EOS A2 35mm).
Canon 28-105: Less distortion at wide angle but also less constrast than the 24-85. Colors are same. Sharpness is less than the 24-85. Better blur background for tele portrait. Shapness at 28 wide angle is about the same.
Sigma 24-70: Look very bright through the view finder ;-). Suprise: almost no distortion at wide 24. Very sharp but less constrasty than the Canon 24-85 but more than the 28-105. No vignetting even at 2.8. The only thing that I don't like is the colors tone are not good for Asian skin. It's dark yellow while the Canon makes it warmer and pink.
Tamron 24-105: Vignetting and distortion at wide angle like the 24-85, colors is better than Sigma for Asian skin, it's brighter but still yellow, not pink as Canon. Sharpness is like the Canon 28-105 but less than Sigma and Canon 24-85.
About focus the Canon 24-85 is fastest then the Canon 28-105 and Sigma 24-70 are same, worst is the Tamron 24-135, it cannot hold focus on a blank wall.
About silence the Canons is best of course with their USM, then the Tamron is very quiet. Sigma is more noisy.
About operating the Canon zoom collar is very smooth, the Tamron is OK but the Sigma is very tight and unconvenient position.
In short I found this:
Just to be clear, I will go for the Canon 24-85 because the color tone is better for Asian skin.
Thank you for all your comments & suggestions.
One more thing: I will buy my first DSLR after PMA, if the D80,90 has more pixels and larger CMOS plus price under $2,000 I will for that. Otherwise I will buy an used D60 that should be $1,200-1,500 at that time almost same as the D30 for now.
Canon 24-85: The sharpest one, colors are vivid and very good for Asian skin tone. Distortion at wide angle and slight vigetting (on my EOS A2 35mm).
Canon 28-105: Less distortion at wide angle but also less constrast than the 24-85. Colors are same. Sharpness is less than the 24-85. Better blur background for tele portrait. Shapness at 28 wide angle is about the same.
Sigma 24-70: Look very bright through the view finder ;-). Suprise: almost no distortion at wide 24. Very sharp but less constrasty than the Canon 24-85 but more than the 28-105. No vignetting even at 2.8. The only thing that I don't like is the colors tone are not good for Asian skin. It's dark yellow while the Canon makes it warmer and pink.
Tamron 24-105: Vignetting and distortion at wide angle like the 24-85, colors is better than Sigma for Asian skin, it's brighter but still yellow, not pink as Canon. Sharpness is like the Canon 28-105 but less than Sigma and Canon 24-85.
About focus the Canon 24-85 is fastest then the Canon 28-105 and Sigma 24-70 are same, worst is the Tamron 24-135, it cannot hold focus on a blank wall.
About silence the Canons is best of course with their USM, then the Tamron is very quiet. Sigma is more noisy.
About operating the Canon zoom collar is very smooth, the Tamron is OK but the Sigma is very tight and unconvenient position.
In short I found this:
- For sharpness and colors: The Canon 24-85
- For sharpness, less distorstion and vigneting: The Sigma 24-70
Just to be clear, I will go for the Canon 24-85 because the color tone is better for Asian skin.
Thank you for all your comments & suggestions.
One more thing: I will buy my first DSLR after PMA, if the D80,90 has more pixels and larger CMOS plus price under $2,000 I will for that. Otherwise I will buy an used D60 that should be $1,200-1,500 at that time almost same as the D30 for now.
David Gore
Senior Member
--
Dave,
My Exact thoughts......when I see what the 28-135 is sekking for these days its got to be the best value around..like you say,identify its weak points and compensate...just a wonderful walkaround lens.
David Gore
Senior Member
--
Dave,
Man,you either got 2 bad lenses or my eyes are shot
....I love my 28-'135 but then I learned how to use it.in fact, it's your ONLY lens right Dave?
photography is my passion.
----
Dave,
Man,you either got 2 bad lenses or my eyes are shot
28-'135 but then I learned how to use it.
photography is my passion.
David Gore
Senior Member
------
Dave,
Man,you either got 2 bad lenses or my eyes are shot
28-'135 but then I learned how to use it.
photography is my passion.
Dave,
I still have a 28-70L which I seldom use if its a typical bright sunny day in South Florida.
Anh
Excellent comparison of your outlook on the lens performance. Writers such as yourself is why I like this site.
I myself use the Canon 24-85mm for my walkabout lens..and it has done nicely for me.
I appreciate your comments of the lens you tested...and I look forward to reading more of your informative posts here in the future. Thanks for posting.
Mike
Excellent comparison of your outlook on the lens performance. Writers such as yourself is why I like this site.
I myself use the Canon 24-85mm for my walkabout lens..and it has done nicely for me.
I appreciate your comments of the lens you tested...and I look forward to reading more of your informative posts here in the future. Thanks for posting.
Mike
David Gore
Senior Member
--
Dave,
Actually,the best Prosumer camera out their is the Fuji 602.Its picture quality and focal range is fantastic and it is so very light and small.I added a Olympus 1.7 extender and get pics almost as good as the 100-400LIS lens I once had.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum