# How is the 24-105 vs. the old 28-135?



## birdman (Apr 18, 2012)

I kept the 28-135 from my 40d kit (such an odd pairing on that model) and occasionally use it on my 5d2. 

The 28-135 is good in the center up to about 75mm or so, but has many flaws such as distortion and soft corners. I say the 28-135 is close to the 28-85 or 28-105. They are all near the same optically. 

But I hear lots of mixed opinions on the 24-105. I know the older ones had some kind of defect that forced Canon to do a slight revision. Maybe it was flare or dust. Anyway, the market for the 24-105 is so flooded and there are some awesome deals out there on new ones from kits. Here are my current lenses: 28-135, 17-40, 35L, 50/1.8 mk 1, 70-300 IS.


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 18, 2012)

I had 28-135 with 40d before getting 24-105 for 7d. Well, i have to say that 24-105 is better. Constant apperture, contrast, sharpness, less CA. I'D say 24-105 is better in every area.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 18, 2012)

The 24-105 is a great lens. No other kit lens even approaches it. There was a early issue that Canon fixed. As lenses go, its relatively new, being announced in August 2005.

Its good on both crop and FF, but is more of a telephoto zoom on crop bodies.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 18, 2012)

The 24-105 is a MUCH MUCH better lens.


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 18, 2012)

There is NO comparison... The only way to make it a fair comparison is to smear vasoline over the 24-105's lens. The 24-105 is much better in every way/shape/and form.


----------



## RAKAMRAK (Apr 18, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> There is NO comparison... The only way to make it a fair comparison is to smear vasoline over the 24-105's lens. The 24-105 is much better in every way/shape/and form.



 That is a nice way of comparing two lenses. Have never tried it. Shall be using it sometime soon..... ;D


----------



## marekjoz (Apr 18, 2012)

RAKAMRAK said:


> awinphoto said:
> 
> 
> > There is NO comparison... The only way to make it a fair comparison is to smear vasoline over the 24-105's lens. The 24-105 is much better in every way/shape/and form.
> ...



Looking at it from some other perspective and distance and paying attention not to get to close to the subject, it's better to get 28-135 than not to have anything, especially when someone wants to learn composition and framing without spending too much for shoes, as RAKAMRAK has it clarified in another post


----------



## pwp (Apr 19, 2012)

Absolutely a different class of lens...it's the L 24-105 all the way. The 28-135 is a useful budget lens that may deliver satisfactory results on a film body or an APS-C body. I had a 28-135 when I bought my then new FF 1Ds. The FF sensor absolutely punished the lens and was quickly sent off to eBay.

By comparison the 24-105 truly earns it's L stripes...most copies deliver better IQ than the much pricier though flawed 24-70 f/2.8.

It's an easy choice.

Paul Wright


----------

