# Canon 28 135 or 24 105



## brianleighty (Mar 16, 2012)

Alright so I have a Canon 28 135 that came with my 50D kit. I never used it too much due to it not being wide enough. I just got a Canon 5D mark II with the 24 105 lens though which means it's a much more useful range. My question is this, which should I stick with? I've tried selling the 28 135 and nobody seems to want to buy it for more than $220 when it's like a $350 lens. I'm mainly planning to use the lens for weddings and portrait sessions and so my thought with the 24 105 is that yes I know it's a better lens than 28 135 but I don't want to keep it and then ALSO end up buying the original 24 70. For a walk around lens I kind of like the 28 135 better as it's lighter easier to work with and I pretty much know the 24 105 isn't going to have a wide enough aperture for most wedddings. I think that's what I'm ultimately going to end up with but before I sell the 24 105 for $850 today I thought I'd get some opinions on whether it's really worth keeping the 24 105. Thanks.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 16, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> Alright so I have a Canon 28 135 that came with my 50D kit. I never used it too much due to it not being wide enough. I just got a Canon 5D mark II with the 24 105 lens though which means it's a much more useful range. My question is this, which should I stick with? I've tried selling the 28 135 and nobody seems to want to buy it for more than $220 when it's like a $350 lens. I'm mainly planning to use the lens for weddings and portrait sessions and so my thought with the 24 105 is that yes I know it's a better lens than 28 135 but I don't want to keep it and then ALSO end up buying the original 24 70. For a walk around lens I kind of like the 28 135 better as it's lighter easier to work with and I pretty much know the 24 105 isn't going to have a wide enough aperture for most wedddings. I think that's what I'm ultimately going to end up with but before I sell the 24 105 for $850 today I thought I'd get some opinions on whether it's really worth keeping the 24 105. Thanks.



Nobody wants to pay more than $220 for the 28-135 because they know it's only a $200 add-on as a kit lens. If you sell it for more than that, you're making a profit. That, plus it's very common and very old.

It's a competent enough lens, but the 24-105 is significantly better. You might find yourself missing the extra stop of aperture at 105mm, the more modern IS, and the much wider 24mm focal length. Not to mention the superior performance.

I've owned both lenses, and it was a no-brainer to sell the 28-135 and keep the 24-105.


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 16, 2012)

Thanks for your input Stephen, I understand your points. In my mind I'm more comparing the 24 70 and the 24 105. I'd like to have a lighter lens for times when I don't need the 2.8 aperture but I don't want to be constantly renting the 24 70 because the 24 105 doesn't let enough light in. Then again the extra 35mm on the long end and IS means I might get a better shot in some cases.


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 16, 2012)

For my 2 cents.. I've used multiple copies of the 28-135 whether it was me owning it way back when to using it one clients cameras, I've never had a crisp sharp photo with this lens... Dont get me wrong, it's good for a general purpose lens and for most applications, it's acceptable, but It has always kept me wanting more... Quite frankly I never have been impressed with the quality of the lens... The 24-105, while "only" an F4, with the improved qualities of the newer cameras ISO's, F4 is becoming quite usable. If i were in your shoes and had to ditch one lens, I'd sell the 28-135 for whatever I can get for it. Comparing the two lenses, there is no comparison... Some of my clients have 50d kit cameras they insist that I use (their liability if anything happens, not mine) and I can show them apples for apples all day long how much crisper and sharper, at 100% views, it becomes. Ditch the kit lens, keep the L...


----------



## awinphoto (Mar 16, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> Thanks for your input Stephen, I understand your points. In my mind I'm more comparing the 24 70 and the 24 105. I'd like to have a lighter lens for times when I don't need the 2.8 aperture but I don't want to be constantly renting the 24 70 because the 24 105 doesn't let enough light in. Then again the extra 35mm on the long end and IS means I might get a better shot in some cases.



I dont shoot many "weddings"... it isn't one of my specialties, but I shoot in dark areas with what I do... I have shot a wedding or two and borrowed the 24-70 AND the 24-105 from Canon a few years ago, had both lenses for a few weeks testing them before a wedding I had to shoot... comparing the two, The IS more than compensated for the 1 extra stop... Plus I found the 2.8 made focus accuracy even more critical and shallower which was a blessing and a curse at the same time... Different people have different preferences, but I ended up shooting with and subsequently buying the 24-105 over the 24-70, but if the 24-70 works better for you and gives you more "keepers"... then by all means.


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 16, 2012)

Thanks awin. I think I phrased this question incorrectly. I guess the question really is, is the 24 105 a good lens for a wedding photographer or should I save up the money for the 24 70 (partially be selling the 24 105)?


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 16, 2012)

That definitely helps. On the 50D I can see the IS helping more but on a full frame I don't see it being beneficial for anything other than still objects as I normally shoot 1/125. I sometimes go down to 1/80 but it seems those are always a little blurrier than I'd like. Then again maybe that's camera shake and I could shoot at that just fine but from everything I've read for people moving 1/125 is pretty much the minimum.


awinphoto said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for your input Stephen, I understand your points. In my mind I'm more comparing the 24 70 and the 24 105. I'd like to have a lighter lens for times when I don't need the 2.8 aperture but I don't want to be constantly renting the 24 70 because the 24 105 doesn't let enough light in. Then again the extra 35mm on the long end and IS means I might get a better shot in some cases.
> ...


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 16, 2012)

brianleighty said:


> Thanks awin. I think I phrased this question incorrectly. I guess the question really is, is the 24 105 a good lens for a wedding photographer or should I save up the money for the 24 70 (partially be selling the 24 105)?



I am a wedding photographer, and I have a two-part kit for events.

Core zooms: 
17-40 f/4L USM
24-105 f/4L IS USM
70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II

This is an excellent general purpose combo.

I frequently find myself at receptions where the room is really dark. Even worse, it's become trendy to paint the ceiling black, so bounce flash is just about useless. One stop in my core zoom lens isn't going to help me a whole lot here, really. So for those situations, I have my fast fixed lens kit:

24mm f/1.4L II
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8

I find this setup to be much more flexible and usable in even the darkest venues. While an f/2.8 zoom is a very nice lens to have, in the dark places I shoot, it's just not fast enough. In places where it is, f/4 is usually just as good, especially when it has IS.


----------



## brianleighty (Mar 16, 2012)

Wow such helpful input. Thanks this really kind of seals it for me. I think I might at least for the time being keep the 24 105. I know it's value won't drop much and I can try and sell the 28 135 again. I am planning to get some fixed primes like the 35 1.4 and the Sigma 85 1.4 along with the Canon 100 IS 2.8. But that's obviously down the road a little bit. In a wedding having a zoom can be really valuable to getting a shot but you're totally right that for a lot of places 2.8 really isn't wide enough either. I shoot with flash so I can make it work with that and I guess when I get to a wedding that doesn't allow flash I'll have to go with primes anyways since 2.8 won't be enough. Thanks for the input everyone. Now I just have to convince the wife to let me keep the expensive lens we were supposed to sell lol.


Stephen Melvin said:


> brianleighty said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks awin. I think I phrased this question incorrectly. I guess the question really is, is the 24 105 a good lens for a wedding photographer or should I save up the money for the 24 70 (partially be selling the 24 105)?
> ...


----------

