24-70L vs. 28-135 comparison shots

[t5Nitro]

These shots were taken with both the same settings (aside from aperture, I'm not sure what they were since the camera picked it... I used Tv), other than whatever aperture each shot was, the settings were exactly the same.

Both shots are straight out of the camera - no artistic composition in mind - tripod stayed in one spot through lens switching:

24-70L:

28-135:

Starting to wonder wether the L series are actually worth that much money? Anyone want to point out what's good in the first shot besides DOF?

They both are pretty similar other than that...

I was also using my flash that I just got with the lens. I have it on ETTL.

 

[t5Nitro]

Alright, I just wanted to actually see what they would look like photoshopped. Keep in mind I don't know what I'm doing with CS4 so I'm 100% sure that they aren't the same settings on the processing.

LR2 is much easier.

Either way here is the 24-70:

28-135:

Now it's pretty noticeable, but I may have used more color correcting or vibrance on the first one, too, I'm not sure.

 

[dendronepthya]

Re: 24-70L vs. 28-135 comparison shots

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14328064#post14328064 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by t5Nitro
other than whatever aperture each shot was, the settings were exactly the same.

Not really. They are different focal lengths too. I don't mean to be too harsh, but this comparison is of little value. Nothing meaningful is actually the same to be compared.

 

[t5Nitro]

So use manual mode for the best comparison so both aperture and shutters are the same?

 

[louist]

For a better example of lens comparison methodologies, look at this lens review over at FredMiranda.com:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/

Lens comparison is not a trivial task, and it's better done by people who are experienced with testing procedures.

No to sound nasty, but your test is invalid for many many reasons. That said, what was your purpose in comparing these two lenses? Are you looking to purchase one over the other?

The 24-70 f2.8L is a fantastic lens. It is the bread and butter lens for most full time photographers and hobbyist alike. It's especially suited to a full frame sensor body, while the 17-40 or 16-35 is better suited to a APC-sized sensor.

 

[t5Nitro]

You're right, I really don't know what I'm doing. Every once in a while I just get a good shot. :lol:

I already bought the lens, louist, and I wanted to compare the two lenses that I had. The new 24-70L and the old 28-135mm.

 

[TitusvileSurfer]

Like the others have said, this test was very unscientific and overlappingly flawed in several ways.

 

[dendronepthya]

Here is a site that may help. They compared different lenses at different settings.
http://the-digital-picture.com/Revi...omp=116&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLI=1&API=2

 

[Jacob D]

All the lab tests are great but none of them represent real world situations and sometimes people get obsessed about pouring over the numbers. Yes there are aspects such as resolving power that can be clearly seen in such lab tests, but what T5 did isn't totally out of line or invalid to question.

Where he went wrong was not putting the camera in manual and shooting at the same ISO, aperture, shutter, and focal length. With that scene though there isn't much to challenge any lens, and I doubt you would see much difference.

You're on the right track, but now go out and put the lenses into tough situations, lower light, high contrast, shoot at the extreme ends of the focal length. Those are the places where the "L" should shine. I have taken pictures with my $70 50/1.8 that would have been indistinguishable from my 24-105L that cost a whole lot more, it really depends on the scene.

Also keep in mind that lenses are complex machines and there are good and bad copies of them. A superb copy of an average lens could easily outshine a bad copy of a premium lens.