Which lens (of these 2) would you suggest?

[chrisjb]

<p>Personally I`m not fond of the 2 choices, mainly because of the varying aperture as you zoom, but you want the extra FL. How wide do you need to go. The 17 85 IS is basically the x1.6 version of the 28 135 so you know virually how it will perform already. I have a few 24~XX lenses and from 28 to 24 is a big difference on your camera eg Sigma 24 70 f2.8 DG macro is a reasonable performer and quite suitable for wedding and portrait at a reasonable price. sorry not what you really wanted to hear but just a thought :o)</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>Hi, I go with Jim and would get Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 I own this lens in Nikon mount and love it.<br>

it doesn't have the fastest focus in the world but it's great for the price and what's nice is that it has constant aperture.</p>

<p>Regards</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p>For all practical purposes it is essentially just an EF-S version of the rather pricier 24-105mm lens for 35mm size sensors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>EF-S version of the 28-135 IS actually. About the same price, same range, similar optical quality.</p>

[chiny_t]

<p>Dear <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=4530289">Michelle</a><br>

I would like you to consider canon EF 17-40 f/4L. You can push ISO to 800 and get good exposure with it for taking picture in room, it is not a lens fo protrait though.<br>

I bought this lens to use with 50D as a replacement of my 28-105 USMII, and very happy with it. Which you get right stuff you need and enjoy shooting.<br>

Cheers</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>I've never used a 3rd party lens before. I always use Canon lenses and I love them. I have the 17-85mm IS and its great. However for portraits, you may like the 28-135 better because it gives you that extra reach. Anyways the 17-85mm does go pretty wide and the IS will compensate for the speed of the Sigma.</p>