Lens: Canon 17-85mm IS or 28-135mm IS?

[peter_rowe]

I badly need a general walk-about lens for my 20D with emphasis on

landscapes. I have the 18-55mm kit lens, 50mm f1.8 and 70-200L F4. I

think the 17-85mm is a great range for me (28-135 on FF). But... it

is an EF-S and reviews mention soft edges and CA, and lots of forum

talk about bad copies. Scary!

 

The 28-135mm is FF, there is less data online but there doesn't seem

to be as many problems. It is a little bit longer though (24mm- would

be better), it's $200 less than the 17-85mm. I need to get IS since

my hands shake. Is the 28-135mm an older IS? What would you do? This

decision is now effecting my sleep so any help *greatly* appreciated.

Thanks

--Peter

[jimstrutz]

I have the 28-135 and I find it a fine lens, but not wide enough for use on a 20D as an all purpose lens. It's great for full frame but I prefer something wider for a 1.6x crop camera. Unless you are one of those *strange folks* that don't care about a wide lens, get something wider. Actually, the cheap kit lens in combination with the 28-135 works well, but you will have to switch lenses from time to time.

 

If you want one general walk-about lens with IS, it pretty much has to be the 17-85. Warts & all. I suspect many of the complaints come from high expectations due to the high price for the lens. The 28-135 isn't universally praised either, but from a $450 IS lens, less is expected.

 

BTW, I don't consider a 24mm lens wide enough either, so the new 24-105 f/4L wouldn't work for me either. But it might for you.

[henrik.ploug]

I would get the 17-85mm. From what I have read the 28-135mm and the 17-85mm are about equal in sharpness. The 17-85mm has some CA at 17mm, but that is not uncommon for a lens that wide. If you are shooting landscapes, you would miss the focal lenght between 17mm and 28mm, if you bought the 28-135mm. Also the 28-135 will only give you two stops where 17-85mm will give you three.

 

Only real problem with the 17-85mm is, that it's not full frame. So if you plan on buying the new 5D within the next couple of years, you should probably skip both lenses and instead get the new 24-105mm f4 L.

[derek_linney]

I have both the 28-135 and 17-85. I find the 28-135 is not that useful to me on the 20D as it doesn't go wide enough for the walk around with one lens on the camera scenario. And if I want longer then the 70-200f4L goes nicely with the 17-85.

<p>

So, I am selling my 28-135 IS - if in a couple of years time I can afford a FF DSLR I can always buy a used 28-135 as they come on the market pretty frequently. [Actually I would probably go for the new 24-105L in that situation - but again for me its too long at the wide angle end on the 20D]

<p>

The quality of the two lenses is very close. Actually I see less flare with the 17-85.

<p>

As for EF-S - even with the FF 5D Canon is producing millions of EF-S DSLR's so I have no doubts that the used market will remain good for EF-S lenses for the foreseeable future.

[jean_jacques_lemaire]

I generally bring a 28-135IS (which I already owned for a film camera) and the 10-22.<BR>

For an even smaller (but less versatile) kit, I take the kit lens 18-55 instead of the 10-22. It's not really a big lens and it fits many bags.<BR>

I wasn't interested by the 17-85IS for the additionnal investissement it implied, and like the long end of the 28-135.<BR>

If I had no "travel" lens, I'd probably look at Sigma 18-125 or 18-200 too...

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 28-135 was my walkabout lens on my film body. From that experience, I know I need the 28mm end of it, so on a 20D, where its wide end is only marginally wider than an effective 50mm, it's nowhere near wide enough to be a walkabout lens. You already have the 18-55, so you should have a good idea of just how wide you need to go.</p>

 

<p>The 28-135 has the first-generation IS; Canon claims it's good for 1.5 stops on the wide end and 2 stops on the long end. The 17-85 has a more recent IS version which Canon claims is good for 3 stops. Have you tried an IS lens? It's designed to counteract normal shakiness, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to try it out with your shaky hands to make sure it works OK for you.</p>

 

<p>The 28-135 is one of the better consumer zooms, but it too suffers from some CA (though it's fairly well controlled) and soft edges. Heck, my 17-40/4L has CA (at the wide end, it has more CA than at any focal length on the 28-135, but that drops to virtually no CA at the long end) and it cost more than the 28-135.</p>

[haunting_your_thoughts]

Hello<br><br>Have you considered getting a non-canon lens. FOr example the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 or the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 lens? They are excellent lenses too. As for the 17-85mm lens made by Canon, If you wish to pay for a non-FF lens and be stuck with an EFS... well, then go for it. but dont be disappointed in realizing that you are going to pay the extra money for something that wont fit into your future upgrades into Full-Frame cameras such as the new 5D.<br><br>Personally I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 lens and it's quality is superb and many say that it's 5% behind the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L lens. Especially those who have both lenses usually state that the Tamron is just as good.<br><br>A few other excellent lens to take into consideration is the Canon 17-40 L lens. The Tamron and Sigma versions are also quite comparable to the 17-40 L. I and many others have found that Tamrons are usually quite good in quality compared to the Canon. Why the 17-40 you might ask? for a few reasons...<br><br>It's a zoom lens<br>It has a dedicated distance of 17-40mm and so the chances of the lens being soft on either end is few to none.<br>It's not too expensive and it is versatile.<br><br>Long rance lenses like the 17-85mm usually take the risk of being on the soft side at one end while being excellent at the other. Would I pay $600 + tax for a lens that may be soft, absolutely not. Worst case scanario... you can do what I did... stick with the 18-55 mm lens since it's quality is very similar to the 17-85mm lens. Stay with your 50mm f1.8 for portraits, and get a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for your long range landscape.<br><br>I know I lost some sleep over which lens to buy. But, i finally decided to get the 100mm f2.0 for portraits in addition to me tamron 28-75mm, and Canon 18-55mm. Down the road I might get the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 and many other lenses when i can afford them, but definately not the 17-85mm because it's an EFS lens, and also because it's quality is nearly the same as my 18-55mm kit lens.<br><br>I know you'll lose more sleep, but that's the fun part of buying a lens... besides trying new methodologies of getting the wife to agree that we need that lens more than a drug addict needs crack. happy hunting :-)

[jim_larson1]

You already have the 18-55.

 

Hand shake should not be much of an issue in the 18-30mm range.

 

Yes, the 28-135 is older. Yes, it is 2/3 the cost of the 17-85/EF-S. Yes, it is same optical quality (Castleman did a good comparison: Do a web search on the name). And the 28-135 is full frame.

 

So. Buy the 28-135.

 

2 stops vs 3 stops is a trivial improvement for the IS unit, and does not justify the added cost of the EF-S lens.

[dogbert]

Better value than the 17-85 is the sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC. Better optically, cheaper, and f2.8 bokeh

 

Though if you need the extra range, then to use Jim's words the 17-85 is a good $400 lens available for around $600 at most retailers.

 

It might be worthwhile checking out how the 17-85, performs at the long end. My28-135 is quite good up to about 100 mm but gets soft thereafter and is quite soft at 135mm. You may find the 17-85's long end simmilarly dissappointing, in which case the extra range is wasted.

[grant g]

Agreed with Geoff above. I would also suggest looking at the Sigma 18-50/2.8. I have that and the 17-85IS. There was a Dell deal posted on the net to get the 17-85 for about $420. I think that would be worth it.

[peter_rowe]

Hi all,

These have been exceptionally helpful. Thank you. I was leaning towards the 28-135 but I am totally convinved now that it is not wide enough for me. I looked back over shots I've taken with the kit lens and many are in the 20mm to 24mm range. The 17-40L is a good suggestion and is in "roughly" the right price bracket. The problem is that is doesn't fill the center range up to the 70-200mm that I am missing. Still, this and the 28-135 might be a good combo. I know the 10-22 is fantastic but probably a bit too wide for me. I was worried about the EF-S but as mentioned here there will always be a market for it. So, I think I'm going to go with the 17-85mm IS. It's the perfect range for me, and has the IS which in addition to helping me hold it steady will hopefully get me more light. I'll keep checking back here for more so please continue if you would.

 

Thanks again --Peter

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>What would you do? </i> </p>

<p> <b>I</b> would get the 17-40/4. Not sure that is what you were hoping to hear but that is what <b>I</b> would do.</p>

 

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[awindsor]

I have the 28-135 but don't use it much on my 20D. My lens choices are 17-40/4L + 50/1.8 + 70-200/4 + a bag. I switch lenses.

 

I plan to add a 1.4x teleconverter in the near future and probably a 300/4 in the long future.

[henry_minsky1]

Another vote for the Sigma 18-50 /2.8. I have the 28-135 IS, and I find that it isn't wide enough for a lot of things.

 

The Sigma 18-50 is not so great at f/2.8, but it is quite good at f/4 or more.

[peter_rowe]

Yikes,

Okay, I admit, I've changed my mind. These last posts, and one earlier about concerns over the 17-85mm have me now thinking that the 17-40L is the way to go. It's short so hopefully I can hold it steady enough without IS (I think I can as I can with the kit lens). I won't need the kit lens then as it is a complete overlap but I'll get much sharper pictures. Perhaps this will do for a while and then I can get something later in the 28-75 range. This way I will be building in the the right direction. I have the 70-200L F4, and with the addition of the 17-40L F4 I'd have another nice lens in the series, with the 50 F1.8 holding the middle for now. What do you think? --Peter

[bernard_neisse1]

I've been hesitating a long time between a 17-85mm EFs and a 17-40mm f4 L. I finally bought the 17-85 EFs for my 350 D and I can say it's a great Lens due to the IS(this is my first IS lens). I made pictures on a 3 day trip to the South of France last week and I think all the comments I read about CA and soft edges are not so evident for me as an amateur photograph.

[tom_schutz]

This answer is way late for Peter Rowe, but might help someone else who reads this later.

 

I have a 20D, and when I look back through my archive, the 17-85mm IS is on the camera

literally 99.5% of the time. Like others have said, the range it covers is undeniably the

most useful for most pictures that most of us take.

 

The alternative lenses either don't go short enough, or don't go long enough, or don't

have IS, or are too big and heavy, or are even more expensive.

 

The IS feature is also absolutely key. You'll probably find yourself in dim light situations

w/out a tripod on many occasions, and this feature often saves the day. Having now

experienced IS, I would avold getting any general purpose lens without this feature.

 

Regarding the optical quality: my other two lenses are a 200mm f2.8L, and a 50mm f1.4.

These lenses are a little sharper in the corners than the 17-85mm, but in the center, it's a

close call. (Maybe they're sharper because of the crop factor). But I don't use these lenses

to get extra sharpness, except rarely. I use them mostly for the bokeh, or if I'm shooting

moving subjects in dim light without flash. And of course the 200mm for longer reach.

How often is corner sharpness really critical? How often do you put your subject in the

corner of the frame?

 

The fact is, the slightly lower optical quality of the 17-85mm (which is more of an optics

lab issue than a real world issue, IMO, except occasionally), is FAR outweighed by the fact

that I don't miss shots while fussing with lens changes, tripods, etc.

 

I think that in the quest for ultimate optical quality, it is possible to end up with lens

combinations that cause you to miss opportunities. Many many times, it is more

important to be in the right place at the right time, and ready to shoot, than it is to have a

razor sharp lens on your camera.

 

I love the smooth, solid feeling of my 200mm "L" lens so much that I looked long and hard

through many many lens reviews on the web, both subjective and objective, to try to find

some excuse to buy some better or sexier lens than my 17-85mm workhorse. I even

rented a 24-70mm 2.8L to try out, and tried on a 24-105 4L on in the store, but I sorely

missed either the upper or lower end of the 17-85mm's range, and the price and the

increased bulk of the L lenses did not justify the(possible) slight gain in picture quality. In

practice, the (slight) extra sharpness of the 24-70 was at times negated by the fact that it

didn't have IS.

 

So I decided to get over it, and stick with the 17-85. Right back where I started.

 

Perhaps it is not the ideal lens if you shoot a lot of moving subjects in dim light without

flash. (Go with a fast prime or maybe a 2.8 zoom). And, if I went the route of carrying

TWO bodies around, I'd probably get the 17-40L and the 28-135 IS or something like that.

But again, you might miss opportunities because of the extra bulk of all the equipment.

 

-- Tom Schutz