2.8 provides narrower depth of field and faster shutter speeds -> important for non-static objetcs. 70 mm is not 135 and I doubt that you will always have a monopod handy on the other hand.
The 28-70 is also an "L" lens, and as such is part Canon's top line of lenses. I've got one, and can attest to its quality. The 28-135 IS isn't an "L" lens, but that doesn't mean its a dog. On the other hand, the 28-70 is not going to give you a sharp picture in low light and low shutter speeds unless you have it firmly supported. You need to decide which factor (extreme lens quality, or shooting handheld at low shutter speeds) is most important to you.
I know I wasn't very clear in my question. I have a 1V and D-60 with 16-35 L F 2.8, 100-400 IS L, 75-300 IS and 28-135 IS and a Manfrotto Carbon One Monopod. Since I travel in groups on longer trips I don't like to take a Tripod but can take my Monopod.
I am trying to decide if I want to get the 28-70 L lense and , later, the 70-200 L IS lense.
In terms of 28-70 L verus 28-135 IS I assume in good/very good light the 28-70 will do better and in average light/especially with a Monopod would likely still do better. At slower speeds and /or poor light would the better lense and monopod offset the IS impact which to me has always seemed to be about 2 F stops. Has anyone looked in this kind of issue ( hard to call it a problem).
The 28-135IS does not have the optical quality to match the 28-70, but in a low light situation, the 28-135 will do better handheld than the 28-70 on a monopod with slow shutter speeds. The 28-135 will generally do well at 1/8 second even at the longer focal lengths and I don't think a monopod can match that.
The 28-70 f/2.8L is two stops faster than the 28-135 f/5.6 IS. Shooting wide open, hand held, the 28-70 will be able to use a shutter speed that is 2 stops faster than the 28-135. The IS makes up the 2 stop difference in hand hold ability, but it doesn't surpass it, so they would be equal... Unless the subject moves! But if you put the 28-70 on a monopod it gains 2 stops OVER the 28-135 IS.
There isn't any comparison here. The f/2.8 lens is better in low light. It focuses faster, it's easier to see the viewscreen, and is just as hand holdable as an f/5.6 lens with IS.
Putting a monopod on either one gives it the edge, but the monopod is likely to help the f/2.8 lens more than the IS lens. However, the 28-135 lens is actually f/4.5 at 70mm.
The 28-70 f/2.8L is two stops faster than the 28-135 f/5.6 IS. Shooting wide open, hand held, the 28-70 will be able to use a shutter speed that is 2 stops faster than the 28-135. The IS makes up the 2 stop difference in hand hold ability, but it doesn't surpass it, so they would be equal... Unless the subject moves! But if you put the 28-70 on a monopod it gains 2 stops OVER the 28-135 IS.
There isn't any comparison here. The f/2.8 lens is better in low light. It focuses faster, it's easier to see the viewscreen, and is just as hand holdable as an f/5.6 lens with IS.
Putting a monopod on either one gives it the edge, but the monopod is likely to help the f/2.8 lens more than the IS lens. However, the 28-135 lens is actually f/4.5 at 70mm.
Jim, I guess I am trying to factor in the quality of the lense in that at F4.5 not all lenses are equal. My gut feel is that without monopod the 28-70 would be equal to the IS and that with monopod it would be better??
quote:My gut feel is that without monopod the 28-70 would be equal to the IS and that with monopod it would be better??
As far as hand holing ability, that is exactly right. However in decent light, or mounted on a tripod, or if the subject is moving, the the 28-70 f/2.8L will be better every time. I own a 28-135 IS and it's a great lens, but it really doesn't compare to this L lens.
Posting Permissions
