|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
||
|
|||
28-70mm f/2.8L vs. 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS vs 50 f/1.8in Reviews: Lenses |
||||||||||
By jah9569/Justin (875) 
on April 5, 2003 10:07:14 PM CST
Introduction and Procedure Introduction and ProcedureMany people ask for side by side comparison of these lenses. So I decided to do so.Also, some words of advice... It has come to my attention that a surprising amount of people think that switching from a consumer lens to a pro lens such as an "L" series lens by Canon means they will be able to take the lens right out of the box and start taking professional quality photographs INSTANTLY. Think again!! You can take equally as bad photos with a pro lens as you can with a consumer lens. One has to learn how to use their equipment before they can judge how good or bad it is. So many times I see people taking a lens right out of the box shooting a few snapshots, compare them to their other cheaper lens's snapshots and then they start crying because the sharpness doesnt make their eyes bleed. Then they go onto the forums on DPreview and at times here on PhotoSIG saying how "well this lens is no better than that lens...heres my samples..." and then that just misleads people. My point...dont buy the expensive professional lenses if you dont know how to use them or the equipment you already have...you WILL BE disappointed, I guarantee it!!! For this lens test I used my Canon EOS 10D and placed it on my Bogen 3011 tripod. Mirror lockup was used as well as my TC-80N3 cable release to achieve maxiumum sharpness. Exposure was measured with a Sekonic 508 Zoom Master. The photos were captured in RAW format at ISO 100 using the following in-camera parameters. Contrast +1, Sharpness +1, Saturation +2, Color Tone Normal. Pictures were taken of a 10 dollar bill at the same exact distance for each lens(my tripod did not move at any time during the test). Photos were taken on each lens at 28, 50, and 70mm focal lengths (except of course the 50 f/1.8) at wide open and stopped down to f/8 where for most lenses is the "sweet spot". The photos were then cropped at 100% in a certain area to show the performance of each lens. All photos are UNTOUCHED except for cropping, no sharpening, no levels, no nothing, they are straight out of the camera.
Physical Characteristics As you can see the 28-70mm f/2.8L, built like a tank, it is the largest of the three. It is also by no means a lightweight lens although I find it attractive on the front of my Elan 7E and 10D bodies. One thing that may seem odd is that instead of extending out when you zoom in to the 70mm end, it goes the opposite way, it extends in. The front element extends out when zooming to the 28mm end. To give you an idea on the build it feels like you would be able to take it and throw it against a brick wall and it would bounce right off unharmed, although I do not advise trying this at home. I find the focus to be very quick and accurate as I expected it to be. The 28-135mm IS is very impressive indeed for a consumer lens. Mostly because of the optics when stopped down which will be shown later on. The Image Stabilizer makes this lens popular. With this feature turned on shots can be taken handheld at the 28mm end as slow as 0.7s and still get sharp. As for size, it doesnt look significantly smaller than the 28-70mm f/2.8L but when you compare them on the same camera body its evident that its much smaller and lighter than the 28-70. Some people still complain of its bulkiness though. Focus is quick most of the time, however in dimmer lighting I find it to "search" more. The build is still good but not quite as good as the 28-70. The 50mm f/1.8 II is probably the sharpest lens I own, yet it is the smallest and the lightest. It is also Canon's smallest and lightest lens. When this lens is attached to a camera it doesnt even feel like there is anything on it, however there are sacrifices. Build quality is very poor, it is made mostly out of plastic, even has a plastic mount. Dropping this lens would probably damage it badly. It is very sharp however when stopped down a bit, wide open performance is quite poor. It also does not have a USM motor, so its a tad slower at focusing and is not quiet like the other USM lenses are.
Performance @28mm You can see that the 28-70 does very well wide open unlike the 28-135IS which seems to suffer from the lack of contrast. Stopping down to f/8 definitely improves the sharpness for the 28-135. Also take note of the color banding on the 28-135IS shots just behind Hamilton.
Performance @50mm Once again the 28-70 does quite well wide open while the 28-135IS stays a bit soft. But the 50mm f/1.8 is horrid wide open. But look who blows everyone away stopped down at f/8! The $70 mostly plastic 50mm f/1.8. Like I said earlier, the optics in this lens are incredible...very sharp and contrasty. I did expect the 28-135IS to be a bit sharper at the 50mm focal length when stopped down than what it is. By the way, I apologize for the wide chart below, but I wanted to be able to provide 100% crops so that the differences can be clearly seen.
Performance @70mm At 70mm the 28-135IS does much, much better. The sharpness comes very close to the 28-70. The one thing the 28-135 lacks over the 28-70 is contrast. Other than that its performance at 70mm is very impressive. Even wide open at f/4.5 its only slightly softer than the 28-70.
ConclusionI have come to the conclusion that the 28-70 f/2.8L is superior to the 28-135 IS. But the 50 f/1.8 is even better yet for the 50mm focal length. When deciding if you should buy a 28-70, you should think about how you're going to use it and whether it would benefit you or not. If youre still learning, and you plan on using it like an amateur then you should save $600 and stick with the 28-135IS because the 28-70L will probably not give you any better results. Though EVERYONE should have the 50mm f/1.8, its only $70 from most places and its super sharp. Most importantly KNOW HOW TO USE YOUR EQUIPMENT...otherwise you might as well take $1000 and set it on fire.
Read 8,222 times
|