Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 28-135 to 24-105  (Read 10167 times)
SMGreenfield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2006, 01:48:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had the old 28-70 2.8L for years, and when I "upgraded" to the 24-70 2.8L I was so disappointed in the lack of sharpness, especially at the 24mm end, that I returned it.

Now, I know I could've sent it down to Canon for calibration first.

I'm now planning to get the 24-105 F4L, as a lighter weight replacement for my 28-70 2.8L, which is my current walk around.  AND -- upgrade my D60 to a 30D (big upgrade!).

But I, too, am concerned about the roulette game of getting a good "copy" of a high end lens like the L-series products.  (I also have a 70-200 2.8L IS -- good, and a 70-300 L IS -- not so good).

Has anyone ever actually spoken to someone at Canon that has discussed the issue?

AND -- are there more "reliable" dealers that tend to not "recycle" a lens that has been returned for lack of sharpness?  Do the higher-end dealers perhaps get lenses that test better out of the box?

Stephen
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 711


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2006, 04:39:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I got my 24-105 f4 IS L lens back from the Canon repair facility.

Now it's very sharp. Seems to be a really nice lens and much lighter than my 24-70 f2.8 L lens.

Going to a car show tomorrow to give it a work out on my 1DsMkII.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #22 on: July 08, 2006, 09:08:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I got my 24-105 f4 IS L lens back from the Canon repair facility.

Now it's very sharp. Seems to be a really nice lens and much lighter than my 24-70 f2.8 L lens.

Bud
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How much lighter? I'm the fence between those two lens. I'd like the speed of the 24-70 and I don't need anything past 70mm (I have other lens) so I was thinking of that faster lens. Now I hear the 24-105 is lighter (key for me) and I'm thinking, what the heck, get the extra focal lenght and forget the speed and weight.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
SMGreenfield
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2006, 11:12:50 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
How much lighter? I'm the fence between those two lens. I'd like the speed of the 24-70 and I don't need anything past 70mm (I have other lens) so I was thinking of that faster lens. Now I hear the 24-105 is lighter (key for me) and I'm thinking, what the heck, get the extra focal lenght and forget the speed and weight.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70065\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 24-70 weighs 2.1 lb vs the 24-105's 1.5 lb.

The 24-70 is 4.9" long vs the 24-105's 4.2"

So the 24-105 is a little over a half pound lighter, and around 3/4" shorter.  And, there is the image stabilizer which is a joy.

BTW, I absolutely love the image on my 28-70 2.8L, and 2.8 is great.  But for walk-around, it gets to be a bit much.  I'm looking forward to a tiny extension on the wide side, and a big extension on the tele end.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2006, 11:18:35 AM by SMGreenfield » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9315



WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2006, 11:30:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 24-70 weighs 2.1 lb vs the 24-105's 1.5 lb.

The 24-70 is 4.9" long vs the 24-105's 4.2"

So the 24-105 is a little over a half pound lighter, and around 3/4" shorter.  And, there is the image stabilizer which is a joy.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=70071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well that's enough for me, I've wiped off the 28-70 from the wishlist. Thanks.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
jimhuber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 147


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 20, 2006, 01:08:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I finally upgraded my 28-135 to a 24-105 L.

No surprises: The 24-105 is a lot better in the corners at f/4, better at f/5.6, and just a bit better at f/8. The 24-105 has less distortion at 28mm, but that's entirely expected. 24mm encompasses substantially more than 28mm and 105mm doesn't get quite as close as 135mm, a benefit or loss depending on the situation.

Other comparisons:

The 70-300 DO lens is sharper and a bit more saturated at 70mm and 100mm than the 24-105 L.

The 24-105L is sharper and more saturated at 24mm than the 17-40 L, but with more distortion. That seems a little odd because at 28mm and 35mm they're essentially indistinguishable.

The 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8 macro prime lenses are far better than any of the zooms at any aperture.

* Tests conducted with a Gitzo 1348 tripod, Really Right Stuff BH-40 LR ball head and L plate, EOS-5D body using self timer and mirror lockup, evaluated side-by-side at 50% and 100% using RawShooter Premium - adjusted only exposure and black point (which were almost identical adjustments in all cases), shooting two shelves of DVD cases at 3m or less (tripod positioned so that the shelves filled the frame).
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad