17~40 or 28~135 for general purpose?

[kwang0429]

thinking about buying a lens for my 20d, was wondering which lens is better? or any other suggstions? thanks :)

[RichardtheSane]

The 17-40L is a better lens

but that said the 28-135 is generally considered to be a more useful all purpose lens.

So, do you need wide angle or do you need normal to short tele. The best thing to do is tell us what you shoot then we can advise better.

[alan sh]

I have both and for walking around, the 17-40 is better - it does wider angles for buildings and landscapes.

Alan

[Olegis]

I think that the 28-135 is much better "general lens" because of its zoom range, but it would depend on what you're shooting. Lets say you're on vacation - then the 17-40 zoom will be more useful for architecture / landscape photography. If you intend to photograph mostly people or more distant architecture / landscape, then the 28-135 will be better (plus, it offers the IS option, which is very valuable for low light photography of static objects).

Then there is the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 option, which you can read a LOT about in this forum, including the famous "Canon 28-135 vs. Tamron 28-75" debates. Decisions decisions ... :cool:

[kwang0429]

I shoot landscape more, I think 17-40 is probably the one I will go with, I am an newbie here and the response time in this forum is incredible, thank you all very much for the suggestions and I really do appreciate it! thanks again :)

[ScottE]

I have both and find that I use the 28-135 more often. Neither is perfect for a general purpose lens. The 17-40 does not go long enough and the 28-135 does not go wide enough. I usually end up carring a small camera bag with one lens mounted on the camera and the other available when I need wider or longer. (Can anyone explain why if you have the 28-135 on the camera the next shot that presents will require the 17-40m but if you leave it on the camera the next one will need telephoto?)

Have you considered the new 17-85 IS lens? That would have a range that would be more general purpose than either the 17-40 or 28-135.

The lens I am considering is the new 10-22. If I was going to carry two lenses, the 10-22 and 28-135 would make a good combination. I haven't shot one yet so I can't recommend it.

Don't be over sold on the "L" designation of the 17-40. It has internal zoom, internal focus and is solidly built. However, on the 28-40 portion of the zoom range it is no sharper than the 28-135, especially if shot at f/8 or smaller. For very close up shots the 28-135 is noticeably sharper.

[billhercus]

ScottE:

That is, almost word perfect, exactly what I was going to say!!

10-22 is quite pricey though .....

[RichardtheSane]

Don't be over sold on the "L" designation of the 17-40. It has internal zoom, internal focus and is solidly built. However, on the 28-40 portion of the zoom range it is no sharper than the 28-135, especially if shot at f/8 or smaller. For very close up shots the 28-135 is noticeably sharper.

Do you have any evidence that this is always the case?

As I am very much aware that in my case the 17-40 was a lot sharper than the 28-135 in the ranges they overlap. Maybe you have a bad 17-40, there are rumours that bad copies exist.

I agree with your suggestion of the 17-85 though... sounds like the perfect all purpose lens for these circumstances. :)

[Hellashot]

You might consider the Sigma 24-135 f2.8-4.5. I am probably going to buy it soon. It'll give you a little wider than that 28-135 you were looking at

[khiromu]

Have you considered the new 17-85 IS lens? That would have a range that would be more general purpose than either the 17-40 or 28-135.


If you are using casual walk around photography, I would second 17-85IS as it's got very good range. Sure the image quality might not be up to L standard, but IS would come in handy.

[MDJAK]

(Can anyone explain why if you have the 28-135 on the camera the next shot that presents will require the 17-40m but if you leave it on the camera the next one will need telephoto?)


Yes, I can explain it. It's for exactly the same reason it rains after I wash my car.

[ScottE]

Do you have any evidence that this is always the case?

As I am very much aware that in my case the 17-40 was a lot sharper than the 28-135 in the ranges they overlap. Maybe you have a bad 17-40, there are rumours that bad copies exist.

I agree with your suggestion of the 17-85 though... sounds like the perfect all purpose lens for these circumstances. :)

I can only comment on the two lenses I own.

The 17-40 is a good lens or I wouldn't still have it. Having made some big enlargements from the 28-135 it is more likely that I have a very good copy of the 28-135.

Still, in the 70-135 and of its range, the 28-135 is not as sharp as my 70-200/2.8. That is a real "L" of a good lens.

[johneo]

I have both (17-40L & 28-135 IS) and find myself using the 28-135 more.

having said that, the 17-40 is a better quality lens and will give a much sharper image but the 17-40 is a little limiting and for a wide angle lens it isn't that wide on my 10D (or your 20D). The 28-135 has a much better range and still gives a great image.

I do find I use the 17-40 a lot more on my film 7NE though, because it is a great wide angle lens.

For an everyday walk around lens ... I'd say the 28-135 and get the IS.

[PekkaM]

I have 17-40 but I usually get my best photos when shooting with my 70-200 f2.8 so that is my general purpose lens now. If I'm traveling and only take onw lens, it's Tamron 28-75.

[cc10d]

of the two you lenses you mention, Overall most versatile, 28-135 IS,(probably still one of the better non L glass zooms.) The 17-85 IS sounds interesting also. landscape, you may need the wider angle. I like the 16-35L.

[SDK^]

Don't be over sold on the "L" designation of the 17-40. It has internal zoom, internal focus and is solidly built. However, on the 28-40 portion of the zoom range it is no sharper than the 28-135, especially if shot at f/8 or smaller. For very close up shots the 28-135 is noticeably sharper.

While it's true that at F8 both lenses performance is very simar at lower apertures the 17-40L is visibly better.

Example - both crops from the centre

28-135 IS : 28mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/28-135@28-F4.jpg



17-40L : 28mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/17-40@28-F4.jpg

[FlipsidE]

If it was me, I'd stick with the 28-105. To me, unless I really get deep into a certain type of photography, start taking action shots, or am getting paid to shoot, I'll probably stay away from the L series of lenses. They are just too expensive for my tastes. Plus the 18-55 that comes with the 300D and 20D these days is only 1mm off the 17-40 at the widest angle. I know it's not the best lens ever made, but when you are just out and about, the 18-55 would be fine for me. The 28-135 would be my choice...better zoom capabilities than what you currently have and the addition of IS.

FlipsidE

[kwang0429]

While it's true that at F8 both lenses performance is very simar at lower apertures the 17-40L is visibly better.

Example - both crops from the centre

28-135 IS : 28mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/28-135@28-F4.jpg



17-40L : 28mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/17-40@28-F4.jpg

whao!! I am getting the 17-40 for sure now!! so much cleaner!!

[raylks]

My suggestion is to choose 17-40.
It is much sharper and provide you a wider angle for landscape shooting. After applying the crop factor, it give you 27mm-64mm which serves your general landscape purpose.
It is a L lense with red strip on it, giving you a luxury and premium sense. The extra sense of satisfaction by just looking at the red strip without looking at the real quality of the lense has already assured you a happy shooting experience :p

[ScottE]

whao!! I am getting the 17-40 for sure now!! so much cleaner!!

I have similar test shots at home. On my versions of those lenses at 40 mm, the 28-135 is visibly sharper on 100% crops than the 17-40, especially at close-up distances.

My 17-40 was one of the first ones that became available. Maybe they are making them better now. My 28-135 is definately sharper than the example posted. It looks like SDK^ got a dud.

[Lesmac]

I have both lenses, and when I used my 10D, the 17-40L was my walkaround lens, since migrating to the 1DS MKII with full frame, 28-135mm became my walkaround lens.
I would go with the 17-40 acknowledging you will probably want something a little longer to accompany it after a short while.
Some examples of both lenses (mainly 17-40) in my gallery

Les

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[greyson08]

I just got my camera and am looking into a lot of threads about these lenses. and I feel that the 17-40 got the better nods, but the 28-135 was close behind. So I had convinced myself that maybe I should look into getting a 17-40... but then I was intantly rethinking it after I realized the 400 dollar price gap... It seems that since these two seem to be so close, that the money would talk and more people would have the 28-135. SO, my problem is... is the image quality on the 17-40 that much better than the 28-135, that I'd still want a 17-40 even after I got the 28-135. Because I'd rather only buy one, and if its honestly worth it to just buy the L, then I'd get it. I don't want any regrets here people. haha, thanks

[greyson08]

Lesmac, just curious, could you point out a good example of a 28-135 and a good 17-40 from your site?

[SDK^]

I have similar test shots at home. On my versions of those lenses at 40 mm, the 28-135 is visibly sharper on 100% crops than the 17-40, especially at close-up distances.

My 17-40 was one of the first ones that became available. Maybe they are making them better now. My 28-135 is definately sharper than the example posted. It looks like SDK^ got a dud.

I don't have a dud 28-135 IS, that is exactly how it perfoms at 28mm @ F4.
You are right though when you say at 40mm the 28-135 IS is sharper - see below

28-135mm IS 40mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/28-135@40-F4.jpg

17-40Lmm IS 40mm @ F4

http://www.sdk2003.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ph_photography/images/lens-test/17-40@40-F4.jpg

All of my shots were taken on a tripod using Mirror Lockup with IS off

[Jon, The Elder]

Well - up to this point after all the hemming and hawing, it looks like the good ol' 28/135IS is ahead.

I know mine delivers tack sharp images after two little mouse clicks !!

Plus it made me over $1000.00 last season !