17-85 IS vs. 28-135 IS Thoughts???

[Ted Barto]

I sold my film SLRs to buy the Canon G5. While a great camera for travel convenience the shutter lag is driving me crazy and I've experienced too many out of focus issues in dim lighting - even with a flash. I'm ready to go back to a DSLR (probably the 30D when I can afford it).

Lenses however?? I've completely scrapped the 18-55 "kit" idea and, in spite of the price, was drawn to the 17-85 IS. Then I read questions/issues about the future of APS sensors, and a number of discussions relative to CA problems and distortion at the wider exposures with the 17-85 (the "value" of the 17MM??). And, if I were to purchase another camera down the road will this lens be obsolete if APS disappears? Then I began reading recommendations to consider the 28-135 IS instead. Yes I would loose wide angle but the 17-85 seems to suffer in this area anyhow but I would save money and then consider future lenses for wider or more telephoto.

I'd really appreciate your thoughts ( "L"s are financially out of the question). - Thanks - Ted

[Billginthekeys]

i personally believe that the addition of the EFS 17-55 2.8 IS shows that canon will keep up the APSc sensors. The real question is will you decide to move up to another body later. But if you are going to move up to a 5D/1 series youd probably want L glass for it anyway I thinnk as a do it all walkaround the 17-85 is a better choice. Me personally, im going to get a 28-135 for a walk around, but only because i have a 17-40, and the telephoto end is somewhat important to me

[ScottE]

EF-S lenses are here to stay. The current EF-S cameras easily match 35 mm cameras and film for colour photography. The majority of film photographers were happy with their 35 mm cameras.

The only people who really need full frame 35 mm format digital cameras are those who need medium format film quality, but can't afford a medium format digital camera.

I have a 28-135 lens, but do not consider it a good general purpose, walk-around lens because it does not go wide enough. I used to pair it with a 17-40 lens for walk-around purposes, but have been even happier since I started pairing it with a 10-22.

If I was only going to carry one lens, the 17-85 would be a good compromise.

[Jetmech1]

The 28-135 is a good general purpose lens. I have really enjoyed mine. Out of all the lens that I have the 2 I like the most are my primes. The primes get more use than the rest of my lens.

[John7]

I had the 17-85 IS lens - It was a good copy. Fantastic lens, ideally suited for walkround shooting, perfect for holidays etc. To me, the range (combined with a 70-200) was more useful than the 28-135. With an APS sensor, you really do need the 17mm (27mm equivalent) if you intend to take photos of buildings/group shots etc. 28mm on APS is just not wide enough IMHO.

Too many people on here get hung up about the EF-S lenses and the future of APS sensors. I say, so what if they do phase the APS out? There will always be people out there who will want them for their cameras. I recently sold my 17-85 and 10-22 on E Bay and lost very little money (only sold 'em because I upgraded to the 5D).

Don't let the EF-S thing worry you - just get out there and put 'em to good use taking photos!

[LightRules]

I like the 1785IS. It gives the best focal range for a walkaround on a crop body and has IS to boot. Yes it's somewhat slow (not its AF though with ring USM and FTM), isn't the best performer from 17-24mm (solid strong at the tele end), and has very evident CA wide open, but all in all a good lens and should be a serious consideration for you.

[Tee Why]

Between the two, I'd go with the Caonn 17-85IS. But I think Sigma's 17-70 is a bit sharper with less distortion and CA and cheaper to boot.
Photozone.de has tested all three, take a look there.

[sessyargc]

enjoying the 28-135 ISU. i've never shot the 17-85 ISU.

bought the 28-135 ISU because of the range and the way i shoot. i need a med telephoto and a slightly wide angle lens (which must be wider than my 50mm f1.8 mkII), which must be handholdable under available light conditions (ie slightly dark restaurants/bars was my main consideration).

i also bough the EF because i can use it on a full-frame. if you don't see yourself using a full frame dSLR/SLR in the near future then by all means go with the EF-S. many believe, including myself, that 1.6x crop will not be going away for a long time.

to alleviate CAs, stop down a little. or you can always post process to fix CAs and distortion. a good thing will be to borrow a good copy of both lenses over the weekend and just shoot away. gives you a feel for both lenses and you would be able to judge if the CAs and distortion are really a big deal.

IMHO both would be a good buy. if you want wide angle go for the 17-85ISU, this is really a good replacement to the "kit" lens. or if you want to keep the "kit" lens, you can get the 28-135ISU instead.

[Neilyb]

Having used this lens for the first time at the weekend I would say at 17-24 mm it isn't perfect, even at f16 I had alot of fringing at 17mm. Ok they were long (1-6 secs) exposures but the colours were noticable on a 7"x5" print!! Lukcily I have my Toki for the wider end and the Canon is more of a walk around solution! But I couldn't live with a lens if it wasn't 17-20mm at the wide end, I need it.

[Mike Bell]

I had to choose between these 2 as well a few months ago. The reviews of the 28-135 were frankly disappointing so I went for the EF-S 17-85 IS. It is my most used lens as it does most general photography. I also got an EF-S 10-22 because I love super wide angle. For the overlap range from 17 to 22 I find I always use the 10-22 lens (if I have the time to choose which lens to put on) as the results are better. The 10-22 is a superb little lens.
Now that I have the 70-200 I have all the ranges I want covered.

[Skip Souza]

I found that 28mm just wasn't wide enough so I went with the 17-85 IS and have been loving it.
I bought it for use on the camera I have NOW, not for the camera I might get in the future.

[Ted Barto]

Thanks to all - in the meantime I'm sliding in the direction of the Sigma 17-70 - better review in Pop Photo than 17-85.

Ted

[basroil]

all here depends on if you need/want the IS or not. on 1.6 crop, 17 is far more useful than 28 (and if you later on consider the 70-200mm, you'll be happy you went for a lens that doesn't overlap so much). IS can let you take some nice landscapes handheld, especially waterfalls, city scapes with cars, and other places where you want a stream of something to form.

[cjm]

I love my 28-135mm IS. Its on my camera about 90% of the time. Taken over 500 pictures with it and I love the result from this lens.

[Neilyb]

1/2 sec exposure, handheld with IS (17mm)
http://www.neilyb.de/phand.jpg


1/6 sec exposure, handheld with IS (17mm)
http://www.neilyb.de/phand2.jpg

Is is cool. Probably best not used slower than 1/15, but if your desperate. :)

[JohnnyG]

I bought my 20D with the 17-85 and it's the lens that's on my camera 80% of the time. I really love it. It's fantastic. It is a great walk-around lens.

[dave_bass5]

Guys
Can i just post a quick question here
my main lens is the Canon 28-105USM MKII but i would like a bit more on the zoom end and IS so am thinking of getting the 28-135IS
Would i loose any quality in doing this? the 28-105 can do f/4.5 at max zoom where as the 28-135 can only do f/5.6 but it has IS so would that even it out?
just curious as i want to slim down my lens collection and have been thinking about the two talked about by the OP but feel the longer reach is more important than the wide end.

Thanks

[danster]

Hi NeilyB, on your website you have some awesome pics of scenery in and around Yorkshire. Would you mind revealing which lens was used for those shots and also if you used any filters. The pictures are jaw droppingly beautiful!