EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Versus EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

[Stearmandriver]

Hey folks,

I'm looking for a decent quality walk-around lens with a little more range than the kit 18-55 that came with the XT. Can anyone share any preferences they might have between these two lenses?

Currently I'm leaning towards the 28-135; mostly because it's a little cheaper, but also because I like the extra reach and the fact that it's an EF and therefore useable on a wider range of bodies. They're both near my price range so I think one of them will be the winner... I'd just like to hear any comments from current users.

Thanks for any input...
Joe

[DaveSt]

I went through the same decision making process a couple of months ago. What I did to help me decide was to use only the kit lens (18-55) for awhile to help me determine what focal length I really needed. I found that I used the wide end of the kit lens quite often, so starting at 28mm just wasn't going to work for me. I ended up getting the 17-85 and I have been quite pleased with it so far. For a general use lens I find that it can do just about anything I need, although a decent flash may still be needed if you plan on doing much indoor shooting (same as you have probably seen with the kit lens already).

[mistry]

I had the same dilema a few weeks back and ended up getting the 24-105L cause I saw it for a good price :O.

If you can strech to it you wont be dissapointed

[door]

I've used both. Only you know what range is more important to you, wide or tele.
I think the 17-85 has the edge on sharpness, but both lenses are good.
The IS on the 17-85 is newer generation than on the 28-135 and allows for one extra stop.
I don't think the usability on FF sensors should influence you, if you go FF you will probably go for better lenses anyway. If this is an important consideration then you should be looking at the 24-105L or the 24-70 f2.8L. If you must have IS then the 24-105 is the one to go for.

[bufferbure1]

I have heard good things about 28-135 and I have seen very shape copies out there. I haven't had much luck with 28-135 however.

28-135 is a fine lens on 5D. However on a1.6 crop, I still perfer 17-85. If you have the kid lens + 28-135, it will work too.

[Stearmandriver]

I've used both. Only you know what range is more important to you, wide or tele.
I think the 17-85 has the edge on sharpness, but both lenses are good.
The IS on the 17-85 is newer generation than on the 28-135 and allows for one extra stop.
I don't think the usability on FF sensors should influence you, if you go FF you will probably go for better lenses anyway. If this is an important consideration then you should be looking at the 24-105L or the 24-70 f2.8L. If you must have IS then the 24-105 is the one to go for.

Thanks for the input everyone. Door, you're probably right about not considering usability on a FF sensor. As far as what range is more important, I find myself using the long half of the kit lens more than the wide half. I've also found it's usually easier to get farther away from something than closer to it. :D Plus I'll still have the kit lens if I need the extra 10mm wide.

So, overall, I think I'm still leaning towards the 28-135. I have the 18-55, and the Canon 75-300 (the cheap one lol) so I'm looking for one decent landscape-length lens to complement my two cheap ones. Plus the IS for general walk-around stuff.

I do have one quick question about the IS. You mentioned the 17-85 has a newer version. Is there a resource where I can compare different IS capabilities of different lenses? I'm curious how many stops I can count on the 28-135 IS for.

Thanks!

[unix04]

i would think IS perfomance is fairly similar across all lenses.

what about the sigma 17-70? no IS/USM, but 1 stop faster, comes with hood, decent build, and $100 less w/ macro capabilities. :D

[terencew]

I was exactly in the same predicament you were in not only a week ago. Had the 18-55mm kit lens, and a sigma 70-300mm. I've been eyeing and researching the 28-135mm for a while, and even though i do appreciate the wide-angle side more, I find that I have more use on the telephoto side, especially for walking around. From what i've heard so far, i think the IS on the 28-135 is 1st generation so it's the most basic of IS. That means it won't work for panning shots and you need to turn it off as well as when you're using a tripod. I felt I didn't really need the extra IS options so this was manageable for me. Plus the fact that it's not an EF-S lens is a huge plus, so you can still use it if you want to upgrade your camera body. All in All, I'm really loving the lens. It's super quiet and my pictures have looked great. Can't wait to really put it to the test this weekend.

[willz75]

If the budget stretches, consider the EF-S 17-55mm F2.8 IS USM. It's a superb lens with 'L' quality optics and designed for the 1.6x crop bodies.

PS: But I guess if you want a bit more range then this may not suit.

[Woolburr]

The 28-135 is a great choice if you are looking for longer. I still use mine on a regular basis.

[Steelydad]

I have a 17-85 kit lens, a 70 200 2.8L IS , and a 1.4x extender. I want a better wide angle lens (still using 20D base). Would you recommend the 17- 50 2.8L? Do i need to be concerned about the 50-70 gap i will have in my lens coverage?

[tkbslc]

The 17-85 was designed to be the APS-C version of the 28-135mm. (17-85 x 1.6 = 27-135mm)

So I would say 17-85 for crop cameras and 28-135 for FF cams.