Canon 28-135mm vs Canon 24-105mm. is 24-105 worth $600 more? I'm trying to decide between the Canon 28-135mm and the Canon L 24-105mm for my "walk around" lens. I'm having a hard time determining if the 24-105 is worth the extra $600 to $700. I know the 24-105 is an L and is a better lens, but is it $600 better? Canon 28-135mm vs Canon 24-105mm. is 24-105 worth $600 more? I'm trying to decide between the Canon 28-135mm and the Canon L 24-105mm for my "walk around" lens. I'm having a hard... » Read More Canon 28-135mm vs Canon 24-105mm. is 24-105 worth $600 more? I'm trying to decide between the Canon 28-135mm and the Canon L 24-105mm for my "walk around" lens. I'm having a hard time determining if the 24-105 is worth the extra $600 to $700. I know the 24-105 is an L and is a better lens, but is it $600 better? « Show Less
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less
1850441
I used 28-135 for more than 8 years and was happy with it. Recently, I purchased 24-105 and I was very surprised. AF is fast, image is clear, IS is working very good. 24-105 is excellent lens and much better than 28-135.
1864062
I realize that this is in response to an old post, but in answer to the question in the second line of Jason's March post...... No, the 10-22mm lens does not function to its full extent on a 1D Mk111, and vignettes badly up to around the 15mm mark.
1864063
I'm a hobbyist. I'd like to upgrade from the 28-135mm to the 24-105mm, but I'm afraid of spending this much and getting a lens that isn't a "good copy." I'm just not expert enough to know if a lens needs to be recalibrated or something. Is it best for someone like me to buy local and ask the camera store to evaluate the lens sharpness? Or buy from someone like B&H; and ask them to evaluate it before they ship it to me? I resell a lot of lenses, too, and I wouldn't want to resell it some day and have someone complain it wasn't sharp.
1864064
The 24-105mm will absolutely kill anything you can get out of the 28-135. It's not just about sharpness - which will improve in the 24-105. It's also the contrast and the colour rendition. Believe me its chalk and cheese. Having said that, the 24-105 L IS is still not in the same class as either of Canon's L 70 - 200's either f4 or 2.8. But longer those longer lenses are easier to build. At the long end (200+) Canon rules.
1716985
What version of the 24-70 are you referring to? If you do not need f2.8 then I would steer you to the new f4 version that has IS. The 28-70 is an old lens no longer supported by Canon and you will find it difficult to find someone to fix it if you ever have problems.
398595
The differences are that the EF 28-135 has a little better build quality. It is compatible with full frame cameras (so if you decide to upgrade your camera it would work where the EF-S 18-135 would not). Another thing to consider is that the EF28-135 has a USM (ultrasonic motor) which makes for much quicker auto focus. Most beginners-novices find this to be a very helpful feature. I would compare the two at a site like the following. (they give the EF 28-135 a better rating too) http://www.photozone.de/
358177
completely different lenses, especially for full frame. Why do you have a 50 f/1.8 on a 6D? that's almost a toy lens on a near professional camera. Although I don't have a full frame camera, if I did, I'd get the 24-70 L Zoom. If price is the issue, get the 24 2.8 IS for outdoor, landscape work and a 50 mm 1.4 for indoors, portraits, everyday use. Another nice lens is the 35 mm f/2 IS. bit wider, very sharp, with IS.
523659
The 24-105mm isn't very wide for a walk-around lens. I'm more inclined to recommend the 15-85mm IS USM for its very nice optics, extra wide angle view and overall versatility.The EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 is an excellent zoom that is particularly useful in low light. It doesn't offer the range of the 24-105 or 15-85 but you won't find a better standard zoom for a Canon crop camera.
2068756
Hi K. Johnson-I have been mulling over this very same thing.....I have decided on the 24-105 for a 50d. You may find this website helpful: www.the-digital-picture.com Has a nice review of canon lens recommendations which helped me to decide. Good luck!
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1264580
Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's... » Read More Well there are two different "kit" lenses the 18-55 and the 18-135. Now the 18-55 is not a "bad" lens but most people skip that and buy either a different Sony lens,a Sigma or Tamron lens. Pretty much because the 18-55 is a "ok" start out lens but not even a year down the road you will most likely want to upgrade. Now the 18-135 alot of people seem to be happy with, it is more money, but it will probably save your money in the long run. But remember this item is BODY ONLY , so no lens came with this one!!! Make sure you find one with the lens included if that's the route you want to go! « Show Less
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
1958585
The 24-105 lens is the lens that is on my camera about 80% of the time. For everyday, walk around use, I think it is a great lens.
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
824632
Hello scott I just bought it , 'cause i can`t afford the 24-70 too. The lense has an excellente construction, and it really sharp. The only thing I can tell you, is that is a HEAVY sense, I don't know if the 24-70 is lighter, but if you are gonna use it for several hours, have this in mind. I hope I could halp you, sorry my english.
1150131
I'll settle this. The 135 being compared to the 200mm 2.8 is laughable. It's different leagues. Different caliber of glass. The 135 is the sharpest production lens made.. With the single exception of, the 200mm F/2 canon. I'm in rolling stone every week...Us weekly every week..People every week. This is the best answer you'll get.www.instagram.com/ZornPhoto
108096
Honestly unless you are making good money off of it go with the 28mm 1.8 it is fantastic. The 24mm is exceptional but 9 times out of ten you will have the same image for 3x the price and twice the weight/size.
1464246
Sounds like you are after a good "walking around lens". For me the best one is the 24 - 120 F4.0. It is generally wide enough and has just enough reach to get 90% of the shots. It is my lens for about 80% of my shots. After this one, I would go with the 24-70 F2.8.
1703579
There is some comparison which saying Canon 18-135 lense is sharper than Sigma 18-200. My frinds please Post Canon 18-135 or Canon 18-200. ( If both are from Canon. which is best).