28-70 canon vs 28-135 canon

Bountyphotographer

Hello, I was about to buy a Canon 28-135 mm when a friend of mine let me borrow his canon 20-70 mm , now I don't know which one to get.
The 20-70 is a fast lens and I really like how the pictures looked., but the price is a bit more than the 28-135mm. Since I never tried the 28-135 mm I am not sure that qualtiy/ price one is better than the other.

Anybody owns both of these lenses?

Thank you

BP

mercphoto

I assume you mean Canon's 24-70/2.8L lens. More money than the 28-135. Noticeably larger and heavier. But in my opinion, owning both, the L glass is worth the money and I don't use the 28-135 any more. Better color, better clarity. The only thing the 28-135 has going for it is nearly twice the telephoto reach plus the image stabilizer. But if you want that opt for the 24-105/4L IS instead of the 28-135.

z_28

I had 28-135 IS once - sold immediately after few days.

But in other way it's 3-4 times cheaper than 24-70L !
You must look at this through your own pocket perspective

jdryan3

mercphoto wrote:

I assume you mean Canon's 24-70/2.8L lens. More money than the 28-135. Noticeably larger and heavier. But in my opinion, owning both, the L glass is worth the money and I don't use the 28-135 any more. Better color, better clarity. The only thing the 28-135 has going for it is nearly twice the telephoto reach plus the image stabilizer. But if you want that opt for the 24-105/4L IS instead of the 28-135.

I still have my 28-135. As I've said before, it is decent for the price. But I don't even carry it around. I use the 24-70 now. Obvious difference in quality and focusing speed on my 5D.

claudermilk

Like z_28 said, what can your pocket handle? $400 or $1100?

The 24-70 is my workhorse lens, like most owners of this lens. It is simply one of the best mid-range zooms money can buy & there is good reason for it's popularity and reputation. There is a reason we all strive to join the cult of the "L".

In this focal length range, I don't find that it need IS all that much--and I use the lens in low light most of the time (why I chose it). The IS on the 28-135 effectively gets you back to where the 24-70 is at f2.8, but has made compromises in the optics to get the lower price. So as mentioned before the only advantage is the 70-135mm range, and most of that is available in the 24-105/4L IS--which gets you both better optics, most of the reach, AND IS. IMHO it's worth saving a bit longer for the L lenses if you can.

evoryware

I like my 28-135 and it's on my camera right now, but I'd rather have the 24-70. Then my 70-200 can pick up the rest. The 28-135 seems to be a good general purpose lens.

Bountyphotographer

Thanks lot
I better get another job
BP:pimp