Reading mode: Light Dark

28-135 vs 70-200 f4 test and mystery

Go to last post
R

Randy Nelson

Well-known member
Messages
186
Reaction score
0
Location
San Jose, CA, US
I have a bit of a mystery on hand. I received a new 70-200 f4 on Friday from B&H. Beautiful lens and build. I decided to take a few shots with the 10D and see if and how much better the L lens was than the 28-135 that I have been using. The first shots I took indoors with flash, handheld, showed that the 70-200 was a little bit sharper at f4.5 and 1/180 second at most focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I did have a few blown shots with the 70-200 which may have been movement or blown focus.

On Saturday I set up the camera on tripod and shot a series of shots with 28-135 and 70-200. Shots with the 28-135 were with IS off. I used the same focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I used RAW, ISO 200, F5.6, 1/90 sec. I imported the shots to PS7 with hacked ACR and used sharpness 100 and smoothing 0 as the only settings different from "as shot". The center focus point was on the sign that the ornamental frog is holding. I saved the pictures using Save for Web with High setting so these jpgs are about 1 mg each.

The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/rjnbiker/10d_test

It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary 28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?

The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were accurate. They appear to be very close. What could cause the 70-200 lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger focal length than the 28-135 at the same focal setting?

Any help is appreciated.

RN
 
I just happen to have the same two lenses, ran many comparison shots from tripod and found that the 28-135 IS is an excellent lens and compares very favorably to the 70-200 f4 L. I do see a slight edge for the 70-200 especially in the corners and close to the edges, and the color rendition is also better but by not much. If you print out the MTF charts for these two lenses from the Canon site you will find the explanation. While the 70-200 has higher contrast for the 30 lines/mm (the thinner lines on the chart), the 10 lines/mm are very close on these two lenses. This is why you will not see much difference in sharpness up to a 10x15" print, however you will see some at 12x18" and larger prints. You will have more fine details from the 70-200.

Bottom line is that the 26-135 IS is a fine performer, at least yours and mine is!
Julius
Randy Nelson said:
I have a bit of a mystery on hand. I received a new 70-200 f4 on
Friday from B&H. Beautiful lens and build. I decided to take a few
shots with the 10D and see if and how much better the L lens was
than the 28-135 that I have been using. The first shots I took
indoors with flash, handheld, showed that the 70-200 was a little
bit sharper at f4.5 and 1/180 second at most focal lengths (70,
100, 135). I did have a few blown shots with the 70-200 which may
have been movement or blown focus.

On Saturday I set up the camera on tripod and shot a series of
shots with 28-135 and 70-200. Shots with the 28-135 were with IS
off. I used the same focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I used RAW, ISO
200, F5.6, 1/90 sec. I imported the shots to PS7 with hacked ACR
and used sharpness 100 and smoothing 0 as the only settings
different from "as shot". The center focus point was on the sign
that the ornamental frog is holding. I saved the pictures using
Save for Web with High setting so these jpgs are about 1 mg each.

The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/rjnbiker/10d_test

It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary
28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or
sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?

The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a
longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this
same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at
the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were
accurate. They appear to be very close. What could cause the 70-200
lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger focal length than the 28-135
at the same focal setting?

Any help is appreciated.

RN
Click to expand...
 
Thanks Julius. I am happy with my 28-135.

Have you seen the same effect with the focal lengths? It seems like the 70-200 is acting more like a 100-300
Julius said:
Randy Nelson said:
I have a bit of a mystery on hand. I received a new 70-200 f4 on
Friday from B&H. Beautiful lens and build. I decided to take a few
shots with the 10D and see if and how much better the L lens was
than the 28-135 that I have been using. The first shots I took
indoors with flash, handheld, showed that the 70-200 was a little
bit sharper at f4.5 and 1/180 second at most focal lengths (70,
100, 135). I did have a few blown shots with the 70-200 which may
have been movement or blown focus.

On Saturday I set up the camera on tripod and shot a series of
shots with 28-135 and 70-200. Shots with the 28-135 were with IS
off. I used the same focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I used RAW, ISO
200, F5.6, 1/90 sec. I imported the shots to PS7 with hacked ACR
and used sharpness 100 and smoothing 0 as the only settings
different from "as shot". The center focus point was on the sign
that the ornamental frog is holding. I saved the pictures using
Save for Web with High setting so these jpgs are about 1 mg each.

The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/rjnbiker/10d_test

It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary
28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or
sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?

The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a
longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this
same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at
the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were
accurate. They appear to be very close. What could cause the 70-200
lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger focal length than the 28-135
at the same focal setting?

Any help is appreciated.

RN
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Randy Nelson said:
The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a
longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this
same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at
the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were
accurate. They appear to be very close.
Click to expand...
They may match each other but they aren't really callibrated to anything.
Randy Nelson said:
What could cause the 70-200 lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger
focal length than the 28-135 at the same focal setting?
Click to expand...
They appear different becaue they aren't at the same focal length, the EXIF data and silk screen on the lens are wrong for one or both lenses. The same thing happens with my 50mm prime and 24-85. I mounted my 50mm prime on my camera and put the camera on my tripod. I pointed it at the wall and then marked the 4 corners. I took a picture. Without removing the camera from the tripod I mounted my 24-85. I zoomed in until the markings were in alignment on the wall.

The results: the 50mm prime reports 50mm in the EXIF data. The 24-85 says 62mm (or there about). The distance to the object was also reported as being different for both lenses. The 50mm actually reported 0 meters which is obviously impossible so I wouldn't take the numbers that are reported in the EXIF data too seriously.

Cheers, Joe
 
When I say the reported focal length is wrong I don't mean that there is anything with your lenses, they are all manufactured that way.

Cheers, Joe
 
Hi Joe,

Right. I noticed the same phenomenon with two sets of 50/1.8 and 24-85 lenses.

--Garrett
Joe Ciarcia said:
When I say the reported focal length is wrong I don't mean that
there is anything with your lenses, they are all manufactured that
way.

Cheers, Joe
Click to expand...
 
I’ve compare the 135 setting on my 28-135IS to several lenses at their 135 setting. The 28-135 is actually at 110mm when it says 135mm. Great lens, but I feel Canon duped us on the actual focal length. Maybe I’m not aware of a funky standard on wide zooms.
Randy Nelson said:
I have a bit of a mystery on hand. I received a new 70-200 f4 on
Friday from B&H. Beautiful lens and build. I decided to take a few
shots with the 10D and see if and how much better the L lens was
than the 28-135 that I have been using. The first shots I took
indoors with flash, handheld, showed that the 70-200 was a little
bit sharper at f4.5 and 1/180 second at most focal lengths (70,
100, 135). I did have a few blown shots with the 70-200 which may
have been movement or blown focus.

On Saturday I set up the camera on tripod and shot a series of
shots with 28-135 and 70-200. Shots with the 28-135 were with IS
off. I used the same focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I used RAW, ISO
200, F5.6, 1/90 sec. I imported the shots to PS7 with hacked ACR
and used sharpness 100 and smoothing 0 as the only settings
different from "as shot". The center focus point was on the sign
that the ornamental frog is holding. I saved the pictures using
Save for Web with High setting so these jpgs are about 1 mg each.

The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/rjnbiker/10d_test

It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary
28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or
sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?

The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a
longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this
same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at
the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were
accurate. They appear to be very close. What could cause the 70-200
lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger focal length than the 28-135
at the same focal setting?

Any help is appreciated.

RN
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/domotang
 
At f4, the 17-40 is very slightly better at 28 and 40. At f8, my 28-135 is sharper. I have no complaint with the 17-40, I just think this 28-135 is a good copy.

At B&H the other day, I compared my 28-135 to the 17-40 and a 16-35. the 16-35 showed possibly more detail at f4, but again, nothing to make the other lenses ashamed.

Disclaimer: All opinions are based on the center of the pic. Totally unscientific test, biased conclusion, and I'm not posting samples, so please feel free to ignore me. :-)

--Matt

PS. There was no lens hood in the box when I got home. Before I could do anything about it, B&H called me to say they found a lens hood, searched their database and found I was the most recent 17-40 buyer, and was I missing one... I've never gotten that service from a vendor.
 
After discussed and picking many people opinions on WA lens. I was decided to go with Sigma 15-30 due to ~$300 cheaper, yet not totally scarify image quality.

Last Friday, I went to my local store and they have Canon 17-40L in stock. I played around with it for 15 min and I really like it. Then I decided to go for it instead of my original plan. I took few hundred shots with 17-40L. I was not very impressed at all. Then, I said maybe I am not use to the lens yet. Okay, few days later took more shots. This time, I made few comparison shots with my 28-135 at exact same setting, handheld and tripod. Surprisingly, 17-40 was not much better then 28-135. In many cases 28-135 was doing better. At least, to my untrained eyes. I like what I see. I had to admit that some test shots, 17-40 is a little better. But, the different is so small. It’s small enough that I can’t justify $800 to gain only WA.

Here is few test shots that you can see for yourself. Two test images, test1.jpg and test2.jpg. One was taken with 17-40, and other one is 28-135. They were handheld, exact setting and taken at 28mm at best. I cut and paste them so you people can’t tell EXIF info on those files.

Can you tell me which image is better or the same?

Test1:
http://www.pbase.com/image/16873984

Test2:
http://www.pbase.com/image/16874331
 
Randy Nelson said:
It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary
28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or
sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?
Click to expand...
I have to do another lens test too, as my 28-135 appears sharper than my 70-200 2.8 IS lens at 70 and 135, even when the 28-135 is wide open and the 70-200 is at 5.6. If I get the same result with another test, I better find another person with a 70-200 to test against. :-)

Rick
 
You're not testing your lens at infinity, where it's rated. If your lens is 110mm at infinity, you need to return it. Photodo's lens tested at 129mm, which is about average accuracy for a 5x zoom.

Many lenses, especially internally focusing zooms, will be MUCH shorter at macro and near macro distances. Although many primes suffer this problem, it's much less obvious. You can try any combination of the following at "interior" subject distances, and you'll always see the prime having more focal length:

24-85 vs 85f/1.8
28-135 vs 135f/2
100-400 vs 400f/2.8

I've tried 2 of the three above, and a friend has tried the other.

Jason
Stephen Reed said:
I’ve compare the 135 setting on my 28-135IS to several lenses at
their 135 setting. The 28-135 is actually at 110mm when it says
135mm. Great lens, but I feel Canon duped us on the actual focal
length. Maybe I’m not aware of a funky standard on wide zooms.
Click to expand...
 
From the shots including MR's I've seen so far, the 17-40 doesn't perform at it's best between 28 and 40mm.... my 16-35 USED to perform like a 35-80 at 35mm at the same aperture of F4.5 (Terrible) but after they fixed it, it's closer to the 28-70L at f2.8 28mm onwards bar CA and frame consistency where the 28-70L is many times better.

The 17-40 performs at it's best between 17 and 24mm from the samples I've seen and if you HAVE a 28-135IS , who cares about the rest if you need the WideAngle part. if you don't then why bother in the first place? . if you just use WA at slower apertures try the Sigma 15-30 and if you really don't use it much at all, the Tokina/Tamron/Cosina 19-35 @ £165 should do so long as you keep it at F8 or smaller or only want small prints

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

 
Adam-T,

Thanks for the advice again :)

You said they fixed your 16-35 and it is much much better now. Can you tell me fix what? finetuning it to your camera? or recalibrate? Maybe I should try diff 17-40 lens.

You're right about who care on lens overlap?? I do want WA. I was just not totally satisfied with overall 17-40 sharpness. I was expecting it to do its best at all range. Now that you mentioned that it only do its best at 17-24. I will go through my shots at those range again. Maybe I will give 17-40 a second change, otherwise I will just gonna go with Sigma 15-30.
Adam-T said:
From the shots including MR's I've seen so far, the 17-40 doesn't
perform at it's best between 28 and 40mm.... my 16-35 USED to
perform like a 35-80 at 35mm at the same aperture of F4.5
(Terrible) but after they fixed it, it's closer to the 28-70L at
f2.8 28mm onwards bar CA and frame consistency where the 28-70L is
many times better.

The 17-40 performs at it's best between 17 and 24mm from the
samples I've seen and if you HAVE a 28-135IS , who cares about the
rest if you need the WideAngle part. if you don't then why bother
in the first place? . if you just use WA at slower apertures try
the Sigma 15-30 and if you really don't use it much at all, the
Tokina/Tamron/Cosina 19-35 @ £165 should do so long as you keep it
at F8 or smaller or only want small prints

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Click to expand...
 
It's amazing that we miss some of the abvious things right under our nose. My brain duped me.
Jason Hutchinson said:
Many lenses, especially internally focusing zooms, will be MUCH
shorter at macro and near macro distances. Although many primes
suffer this problem, it's much less obvious. You can try any
combination of the following at "interior" subject distances, and
you'll always see the prime having more focal length:

24-85 vs 85f/1.8
28-135 vs 135f/2
100-400 vs 400f/2.8

I've tried 2 of the three above, and a friend has tried the other.

Jason
Stephen Reed said:
I’ve compare the 135 setting on my 28-135IS to several lenses at
their 135 setting. The 28-135 is actually at 110mm when it says
135mm. Great lens, but I feel Canon duped us on the actual focal
length. Maybe I’m not aware of a funky standard on wide zooms.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/domotang
 
There is an industry standard on focal lengths and max aperture designations for lenses. I believe it is 10 or 15 percent. E.g., the EF50mm f/1.4 is actuallly a 53mm f/1.49 lens. The numbers marked on the lens are nominal and generally are worse than the example, especially for zooms.

Also, comparing performance of a wide angle zoom lens to a mid range zoom at like focal lengths is not fair as wide angles do not perform as well as longer focal lengths because of the retrofocus design constraints.
John Robbins said:
John Robbins said:
Rick,
Click to expand...
I have a 70-200 f4 on the way to Canon to be recalibrated, my
28-135 beats it at 70, 100, and 135.

jr
Click to expand...
 
17-40 slightly better at f4, 40mm:

http://www.pbase.com/wpwoodjr/10d_test_images
Adam-T said:
From the shots including MR's I've seen so far, the 17-40 doesn't
perform at it's best between 28 and 40mm.... my 16-35 USED to
perform like a 35-80 at 35mm at the same aperture of F4.5
(Terrible) but after they fixed it, it's closer to the 28-70L at
f2.8 28mm onwards bar CA and frame consistency where the 28-70L is
many times better.

The 17-40 performs at it's best between 17 and 24mm from the
samples I've seen and if you HAVE a 28-135IS , who cares about the
rest if you need the WideAngle part. if you don't then why bother
in the first place? . if you just use WA at slower apertures try
the Sigma 15-30 and if you really don't use it much at all, the
Tokina/Tamron/Cosina 19-35 @ £165 should do so long as you keep it
at F8 or smaller or only want small prints

--
Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist

My Ugly mug and submitted Photos at -------->
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=27855

Click to expand...
 
What really surprises me is that even at 135mm (where the 28-135 is suppose to be least sharp - PopPhot review) it outperforms your 70-200.

Frank B
Randy Nelson said:
I have a bit of a mystery on hand. I received a new 70-200 f4 on
Friday from B&H. Beautiful lens and build. I decided to take a few
shots with the 10D and see if and how much better the L lens was
than the 28-135 that I have been using. The first shots I took
indoors with flash, handheld, showed that the 70-200 was a little
bit sharper at f4.5 and 1/180 second at most focal lengths (70,
100, 135). I did have a few blown shots with the 70-200 which may
have been movement or blown focus.

On Saturday I set up the camera on tripod and shot a series of
shots with 28-135 and 70-200. Shots with the 28-135 were with IS
off. I used the same focal lengths (70, 100, 135). I used RAW, ISO
200, F5.6, 1/90 sec. I imported the shots to PS7 with hacked ACR
and used sharpness 100 and smoothing 0 as the only settings
different from "as shot". The center focus point was on the sign
that the ornamental frog is holding. I saved the pictures using
Save for Web with High setting so these jpgs are about 1 mg each.

The pictures are at http://www.pbase.com/rjnbiker/10d_test

It appears to my untrained eye that I have either an extraordinary
28-135 or a very ordinary 70-200 as the 28-135 is as sharp or
sharper than the 70-200. What do you think?

The mystery is that the images taken with the 70-200 appear to be a
longer focal length than the same images with 28-135. I noted this
same effect with the set of photos from Friday indoors. I looked at
the EXIF data to make sure that the markings on the lens were
accurate. They appear to be very close. What could cause the 70-200
lens to give an apparent 25-50% larger focal length than the 28-135
at the same focal setting?

Any help is appreciated.

RN
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top