Acapixus did a comparison of Canon EF 24-105/4.0 L IS USM versus a EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM and a EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM versus Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L USM versus Canon EF 50/1.4 USM versus Canon EF 100/2.8 USM macro.
The comparison was shot at ifferent focal length and at different f-stops using a Canon EOS 10D set at ISO 100. The camera was tripod mounted. Images were captured as RAW and converted to 24 bit TIFF files using DPP 1.503. Sharpness was set to 0 (no sharpening) and no other postprocessing has been applied to the images. 200×200 pixel crops were excised from the centre and periphery and saved as TIFF prior to conversion as JPEG files
Comments: “Well, it is hard to sum up this many images in a short conclusion. The quality of the lenses vary depending on the focal length and obviously the aperture. In my eyes the EF 24-105/4.0 L IS USM does have the best overall quality, as one would expect. At 50 and 100 mm this lens is close to the performance of the prime lenses.
However, the EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM is surprisingly close on its heals at many settings at only half the cost. It should be noted though that at the 105 mm setting this lens is only f/5.6 wide open – a full stop less than the EF 24-105/4.0 L IS USM.
The EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM shows mediocre performance at most settings, except perhaps 70 mm. This latter lens suffers from low contrast wide open.”
Visit Canon EF 24-105/4.0 L IS USM versus a EF 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM and a EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM versus Canon EF 17-35/2.8 L USM versus Canon EF 50/1.4 USM versus Canon EF 100/2.8 USM macro test at: