Which lens: EF 28-135mm vs EF-S 17-85mm

[eac706]

For the 300D which is best lens, as in quality and performance.

EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM.

EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM


Thanks for your help.

[Andy_T]

Alternatives at similar price levels in my opinion:

- 17-85 IS (one lens, IS) or
- 18-55 + 28-135 IS (IS, longer range) or
- 18-55 + Tamron 28-75/2.8 (no IS, but great sharpness and 2.8 )

I've gone with option 3 and so far rarely used the 18-55, because the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is so nice on my 20D.

Best regards,
Andy

[mdr]

The EF-S 17-85 IS on the 300D is Canon's equivalent to the 28-135 IS on a film camera due to the 300D's 1.6x magnification factor.

If this is going to be your only lens, then the 17-85 IS would be your best bet, as the other may proof not to give you enough wide angle, starting at the equivalent of 45mm.

I have used the 28-135 IS happily for years on my EOS 3, but when I got the 20D I found it too restrictive. It's amazing how often one uses the 28mm.

I was considering the 17-85 IS, but decided to go for the superior L-glass.

[eac706]

Thank you for your help. I already have the 18-55, 28-105, 75-300 IS, 100, 50, but want a lens which is more flexible and easy to carry around. The 28-105 is quite a remarkable lens but lacking the IS, the 18-55 even though on the 300D it zooms to equivalent 88mm on 35mm SLR, lacks the lonng range. Whislt the 75-300 IS is to big and heavy to carry around for long walks. Thanks again for your help.

[mdr]

You'll find that the 28-135mm is far sharper than your 28-105mm. On the down side, the 28-135mm is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 28-105mm lens. So if you find the 75-300mm IS too heavy, then this could be an issue for you.

Looking at your range of lenses, the 17-85mm IS would replace your 18-55mm and 28-105mm lenses. It will prove to be a big step up from these two lenses in quality as well as IS.

[Jim Larson]

but the 17-85/EF-S is expensive. At $600, the image quality is no better (and some say worse) than the $425 28-135/IS.

I would get the 28-135/IS, and keep the 18-55 in your pocket for the walks.

[Tom W]

You'll find that the 28-135mm is far sharper than your 28-105mm. On the down side, the 28-135mm is quite a bit bigger and heavier than the 28-105mm lens. So if you find the 75-300mm IS too heavy, then this could be an issue for you.

I believe that depends on which version of 28-105 you are referring to. The 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 is optically comparable to the 28-135 in most cases, except that it apparently lags a bit at its widest aperture at the wide angle end. From f/5 or so on up at the wide end, they are essentially equal performers. They tend to perform equally at the longer end as well.

Looking at your range of lenses, the 17-85mm IS would replace your 18-55mm and 28-105mm lenses. It will prove to be a big step up from these two lenses in quality as well as IS.

I agree - the 17-85 IS provides a very useful focal length range for the 1.6 sensor. I suspect that if I had that combination, that lens would spend a majority of its time on the camera.