louis greene , Dec 27, 2005; 02:27 p.m.
I know what theory and MTF charts suggest, but what have you all had
as real world results regarding the quality of the 28-135 IS lens VS
the newer 24-105 IS lens? I'd really love to hear from people who
have upgraded and if it was worth the $$$$$$$,$$$. (My search found
a lot about people thinking or going to upgrade but mot much from
people who did) I know the 5D is suppossed to be critical on lens
quality, and that is likely where it's going to be used, but I also
have the 10D so it will be used there too.
Steve Dunn , Dec 27, 2005; 03:18 p.m.
Those are the only two I've seen which directly compare these two lenses. I'm considering the same upgrade, though not for another year or so (so my bank balance can recover from the 70-200/2.8L IS USM I bought yesterday, and so at least some of the new and shiny premium can wear off the 24-105) and will be interested to see if there are any other comparisons out there.
Jack Floyd 
, Dec 27, 2005; 05:22 p.m.
Ran out of ink, so had to quit my home test, but so far the 28-135 is holding up rather well in comparison, given that I did a quick and dirty handheld " wide open" aperture test outside the camera store
I test by printing 11x17 prints, since I don't shoot just for the computer screen
I don't think I'll get the 24-105
Yaron Kidron , Dec 27, 2005; 06:58 p.m.
I still believe that the 24-105/4L lens is a very good bargain for $699.
Jack Floyd , Dec 27, 2005; 07:44 p.m.
BTW, I shoot with a 20D, with attendant "crop", and fully agree with Yaron
louis greene , Dec 27, 2005; 09:58 p.m.
699$?..is that a non IS version? B&H has the IS version for $1249.00! That would be quite a bargin if it were 699$, even grey market. I know it's not a direct comparison, but I am going to do some test shots with my 28-135 IS and my 70-200L f4 and see if there is a big difference there. I know there was when I left my 28-200 Sigma behind. Thanks for the links.
Andy Radin , Dec 27, 2005; 10:21 p.m.
he's saying it's overpriced at $1249. no prices like $699 to be found at the moment, I'm afraid.
Paulo Bizarro , Dec 27, 2005; 11:53 p.m.
Real world? One is 4mm longer, the other is 30mm shorter.
That can make more difference than MTF charts.
louis greene , Dec 28, 2005; 04:06 a.m.
Yes, 699$ would be nice and I probably wouldn't have posted this question if that's what it was. As for the 4mm/30mm - I have a prime at 24 and 70-200L glass so that doesn't really matter to me. What would matter would be getting a camera with increased resolution only not to take advantage of it because of lens choice. MTF charts are a good start, a real good one. However, just because a result is statistically significant, it doesn't mean you'll see it in a 20 x 30 print.
Vincent J M , Dec 28, 2005; 07:03 a.m.
I wouldn't buy it.
It's an f/4 lens, L or no L. At $1299 I wouldn't buy it if it were the sharpest lens on earth. At $500-600 I just might. The 28-135 is FAR better bang for the buck. If I'm on a 1.6x crop camera, then 24vs28 is no big deal, I'd rather go to 17-18mm at the wide end.
