18-55 with 28-135 OR 17-85 with 70-200 OR something else?

[carmen_m]

Hello,

 

I own a 350D with kit lens and a 50mm 1.4. I've got my eyes set on a canon 17-85

because I've found I dread changing lens and this would be the best walkaround

lens for my needs. However, there will be occasions when I need a longer zoom so

I need to buy another lens.

 

At first I had a look at canon 28-135 but realised later the 135 would be

equivalent to about 6x on a compact digital (my previous camera was a G5), is

that correct? If that's all I'd be gaining, there wouldn't be much point getting

another lens, now wouldn't there? It wouldn't be long enough.

 

That leaves Canon 70-200 F4 to consider or a different combination of lens.

 

 

I have thought about getting just the 28-135 and keeping the 18-55 kit lens for

the wide angle (I tend to use it at F8 most of the time anyway to make the most

of its sharpness) but I'm hoping image quality on the 17-85 would be better

overall. Plus, with this combination, I'd find myself changing lens far more

often than with the 17-85.

 

Can you help with suggestions? I suppose I could stretch it and get the 70-200

as well as the 17-85 but I don't like throwing money out the window.

 

Thanks

[amol]

Carmen,

 

Just to clarify:

A 28-135 is a little less than 5x zoom. (28x5=140), which the same as the 17-85mm (5x). This however, is not the same thing as field-of-view (FOV).

 

Buying a 17-85 will be an upgrade compared to the 18-55. The 17-85mm gives you more reach than the 18-55. The image quality is also said to be better. Not to mention the Image Stabilization. However, if you are satisfied with the 18-55, then my suggestion would be to add the 70-200 f/4.

 

If not satisfied with the 18-55, then a 17-85 would be a good buy. It should make a good walk-around lens. Eventually, if you want more reach you could add the 70-200.

[carmen_m]

Hmm, didn't know the 28-135 is as short as a 5x optical zoom on a compact digicam. I just had a look at Canon G9 on dpreview and it's got 6x optical zoom (35 mm - 210 mm equiv). The 28-135 ends up a 44-216 on my 350D. Am I missing something?

 

I'm not really happy with the kit lens. Since I posted my question, I read about about the Tamron 17-50 and seems a good replacement for my kit lens. Quality seems a bit better than 17-85 even if it's not as convenient.

 

If 28-135 is less than 5x, then the 17-85 is definitely TOO short so I'm left with choosing the 28-135 or the 70-200 to complement it. Trouble is the 70-200 is so darn long, and, I imagine, quite bulky.

 

Decisions, decisions... :)

 

Thanks

[anders_carlsson]

How wide does your walk-around have to be? If you're OK with 28mm, then you might want to consider a Tamron 28-75/2.8. No USM and no IS, but much better optics than Canon's 17-85 and almost as "long". The 17-85 will probably be a slight upgrade from the 18-55 but you're likely to find it outperformed by the 70-200/4L anyway. A 28-75 and 70-200 combo is nice, that is if you can live with the lack of coverage at the wide end.

[mwaks]

You can't go wrong with the 17-85mm EF-S as a good walk around lens. For close-ups you might want to consider the new 55mm to 250mm EF-S that is coming out soon. A Canon 70-300mm would also be an acceptable choice.

[geoffm]

Unfortunately, very long zoom range lenses for SLRs tend to be big, heavy, and optically poor (relatively speaking.) If you use an SLR, changing lenses is part of life, it's the trade-off you get for the dramatic improvement in image quality.

 

The 17-85 IS and 70-300 IS make an excellent pair for most non-specialised photography for me. Very good zoom range and good optical quality. Sure you could get better IQ from a different set, but not for anywhere near the price, nor (more important for me) the size and weight. FWIW, 28mm on a 350D wouldn't be wide enough for me, but, as they say, YMMV!

[amol]

"didn't know the 28-135 is as short as a 5x optical zoom on a compact digicam. I just had a look at Canon G9 on dpreview and it's got 6x optical zoom (35 mm - 210 mm equiv). The 28-135 ends up a 44-216 on my 350D. Am I missing something?"

 

Yes

 

A 6x (or 5x) optical zoom is just a multiplier from the lowest focal length to the highest. So, the 17-85, you take 17mm x5= 85mm, so a 17-85 has a "5x" optical zoom. Or you can divide to find the optical zoom, for example 28-135mm. 135mm divide 28mm equals about 4.8, so it is considered a 4.8x optical zoom. Even on your XT, (44.8-216mm) it is still a 4.8x optical zoom, depending on how you round up or down.

 

So, for a G9 (35-2100, take 210mm divide 35mm, that equals 6, so it is considered "6x optical zoom".

 

So, a 70-200mm lens is considered a 2.8x (or 3x)optical zoom. (200mm/70mm=2.8).

 

You can't really tell much about a lens, if you are judging a lens by optical zoom ratio (3x, 5x, 6x). You need to know the widest or longest focal length, otherwise you can't really tell anything about how far or wide you can zoom.

[amol]

By-the-way, the Tamron 17-50 is a great lens, I use it on my XT. I also have a cheap Tamron 70-300, which I will eventually replace with either a Canon 70-300 IS lens, Canon 70-200 f4, or the newer Canon 55-250 lens.

 

With a 17-50 plus 70-200 (or a 55-250), you would have a nice range.

[james_sigle]

To answer the exact question you have ask, the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM and the EF 70-200mm f4L USM (with or without IS) make a very good combination. It gives you a wide coverage at an excellent value. The resale value has held up very well, so if you decide some other lenses are preferable in the future, you're not out much. Most important they are Canon and function like a Canon lens should.

 

Jim

[m_barbu1]

Carmen, I think you need to enumerate your goals, before we can give you an accurate suggestion.

 

I started in a very similar situation as your's, and ended up selling all the lenses I collected over the years and replacing them with the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM.

 

When I started out, I couldn't justify spending $4000 on lenses. I also couldn't afford it. Or, at least I thought I couldn't.

 

Once I properly assessed my needs and desires, I realized I couldn't afford not to have those lenses. I also now wish that I'd done home my homework on what I really hoped to accomplish and accurately define my needs and desires before I spent the time and money buying and selling "lesser" lenses. If I did that, I would have saved a considerable amount of money (in buying new, and selling used).

 

Of course, one could argue that such is the price of learning, but I digress.

[danielrtan]

Hello, in my experience 17-85 IS USM not sharp lens, in the range price buy 17-40L better than 17-85. 70-200L with IS or non IS you must have because this is very good lens and sharp, other alternative buy tamron 17-50f 2,8 or 28-75 f 2,8 this is fast lens & sharp - best regard

[anton_turon1]

Well, I owned the proposed config of 17-85 + 70-200F4. In terms of range, this config was sufficient if not a bit overkill. I have grown lazy swapping the lens because of the overlapping + every time I swapped them, the difference in quality made the photo series inconsistent. It may sound harsh, but 17-85 is only so-so in terms of optical performance, especially in boundary conditions - hence upgrade was considered.

Canon 17-55F2.8 IS USM was tried and rejected, the price and known issues invalidated this choice immediately. Optical quality was superb although the build was lacking. Then I tried the 'new' Tokina 16-50F2.8 and remained there. Quality of build (the feelings when taking pictures was similar to that of Canon 70-200F4) and shots were on-par with Canon70-200F4 if I can say so. Plus, the total weight of the kit (Body+lens) was similar in both cases, so no changes in grip or position was necessary when taking pictures...

 

So my final config : Tokina16-50F2.8 + Canon 70-200F4. As for the gap, I can still walk, can't I?