Help me decide between these 3 lenses!

[john_rodgerson]

<p>Hello,<br>

<br />After some helpful suggestions on here regarding lenses, for my budget I have narrowed it down to 3 possible lenses to buy. Each one offering something a bit different but I'm struggling to decide which to purchase.<br>

<br />a) Canon EF-S 18-135mm IS f3.5-5.6 (Brand New)<br>

<br />b) Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS USM f4-5.6 (Second Hand)<br>

<br />c) Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (Second Hand)<br>

<br />I believe each one offers some good points and some bad points to me. The 18-135 has the reach but downside is the changing aperture. The 17-85 has the USM and wider angle but same changing aperture. The Tamron has the consistent aperture but loses on reach and its quite noisy. Is there any clear winners here based on experience using these lenses and taking age into consideration? <br>

<br />My instinct says the 18-135 just because its newer, has better reach and at least has IS. <br>

<br />HELP! Thanks. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 2.8 non VC. Not just from me but from photozone they say it is a very sharp lens. It is not that noisy. You hear something but its not near as noisy as my Canon 50mm 1.8. It may pose a problem with video recording, however but it is more like a squeak and the AF is fairly quick. It is the first third party lens I have bought in many years because of previous bad experiences. The non VC Tamron is reported to be sharper than the VC. I have mounted this on a NEX 5N with a Canon adapter and what an improvement over that kit lens. I use it on a Canon 7D also. With a constant 2.8 it is a great buy at 500 bucks. The new 18-135 stm is supposed to be an improvement over the older one. I have read some uncomplimentary reviews about the 17-85 and the newer 15-85 is supposed to be better. </p>

[massimo_foti]

<p>Personally I don't mind too much slower/variable-aperture zooms whenever I am outdoor, as soon as I am indoor I reach for the faster lenses. If you mostly use it outdoor, the 18-135 offers a very convenient reach, if indoor usage is important, I'll go with Tamron 17-50. It's a trade-off...</p>

 

[john_rodgerson]

<p>The Tamron sounds very appealing. I'm going to be doing video so the Tamron might help with that. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>You haven't provided us with enough information to give good advice.</p>

<p>I would ask what it is you shoot, what kind of output you plan, and what other lenses you have.<br>

<br />For example, if you value the IQ of the output, and intend on doing either large printing, or severe cropping, the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is going to be by far the best choice, similarly if you plan on portraiture being the main use. <br>

If, OTOH, you intend to use the images solely for on screen display, and don't plan on printing... or if you plan on using the lens as a 'walkaround' or 'vacation' zoom, obviously the 18-135 or 17-85 will benefit you more, and the IQ is probably about the same, so unless you use FTM a lot, the 18-135 is probably a better choice. </p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>I'm wondering why the EF-S 15-85/3.5-5.6 isn't on your list, John. It has stellar optics, decent reach, and IS.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>It's also double plus the budget.</p>

<p>Since you are doing a lot of video, I'd reccomend against the tamron. In fact, I'd recommend my least favorite of the three (for pictures), as the 17-85 has a) IS makes a big difference for handheld video smoothness, and b) USM w/ FTM focusing allows refocusing during shooting w/o having completely MF.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>I can't help you much with the comparison of the three lenses, though some years ago I did own and use the EFS 17-85mm lens on a cropped sensor body. Overall I was not impressed.</p>

<p>On the plus side, the 17-85mm range is pretty useful and having it in a single lens can be better for some shooters than having to with lenses. The lens is reasonably small and light and built OK for a EFS lens. For many people it might be the only lens they need.</p>

<p>On the minus side, it is not a great optical performer. While this may not be a problem at all if you main goal is to share online jpg images, it certainly can be an issue if you plan to print at any decent size. The lens suffers from some significant barrel distortion at wide angle focal lengths, along with very noticeable vignetting and corner softness. Also, because its maximum aperture at the long end is only f/5.6, you really have only a couple of useful apertures before you might begin to be concerned about diffraction blur.</p>

<p>If the focal length range and other features appeal to you, from what I hear the newer 15-85mm iteration of this lens may be a better bet.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The lack of really descriptive titles for posts makes it harder to find them, but a search on the Tamron lens, for example, here at Photo.net will reveal at least three virtually identical questions in as little as the last three weeks. This definitely meets the definition for FAQ</p>

<p>I'll leave it to the partisans, but my personal choice is the old 17-85 if you can't afford the new 15-85. It's my most heavily used lens on a APS-C body.</p>

<p>I'd lose the 18-135 off the list, myself. The Tamron works if you really need the faster aperture.</p>

[john_rodgerson]

<p>This is great thanks. I've chosen the Tamron!</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>I have the original Tamron 17-50mm and the Canon 18-135mm that came with my 60D. <br>

The Tamron is very sharp and has f/2.8. It's my main lens for most purposes. You really can't go wrong with this one. I've never used the IS version of this lens. <br>

The 18-135mm is not as sharp as the Tamron, but, if you shoot RAW, you can correct almost everything that's wrong with this lens by using the new Digital Lens Optimizer (and older lens corrections) features incorporated in Canon's Digital Photo Professional. DPP really helps to squeeze the last bit of IQ out of this lens, and the lens is otherwise a great travel lens because you can take just the 18-135 and leave all the rest behind. All the important focal lengths are covered. Yes, the 18-135mm is slow at the telephoto focal lengths, but the IS feature works better on this lens than a lot of the other inexpensive Canon lenses.</p>