EF 28-135 or EF-S 17-85 to start with 350D

[PatrickZ]

My brother is planning to buy the new EOS 350D (without the kit lens) and buy the lens separately.

We're having a discussion on what is the best lens to mate with this camera, considering he want to use only 1 lens.

We have reduced the options to EF 28-135 or EF-S 17-85. I guess quality is the same but main differences are:
- price (17-85 is EUR 150 more expensive)
- wide angle (17mm) vs more zoom (135mm)

My advice would be spend the additional 150 and get the EF-S because:
- he will certainly miss the mm in the low end
- the additional tele (85-135) is nice but not as nice as the wide angle
- buying a (super)tele in the future is a better option (cheaper) than buying an additional wide angle lens (expensive!).

Your comments/advice are highly appreciated!

[Jesper]

I have a 10D with 17-40L, 28-135 (and more stuff, but that's not relevant for this discussion...).

The lens I use most as a "walkaround" lens is the 17-40. The 28-135 is very nice, but 28mm is not very wide on 1.6x crop factor cameras like the 10D (and 300D, 350D, 20D).

On the other hand, 40mm isn't long enough for portait shots, even on an 1.6x crop factor camera, so I find myself switching lenses a lot when I walk around on holiday, making photos of the surroundings and of people.

The focal length of the 17-85 would be ideal as a walkaround lens. Unfortunately it is an EF-S lens, which means it doesn't fit on my 10D.

So, if I had an EF-S compatible camera, I'd go for the 17-85 instead of the 28-135. Many telezoom lenses start at around 70 or 75 mm (up to 200 or 300mm), which would combine nicely with the 17-85.

[PatrickZ]

Thanks for you reply

Should I also consider the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR AF as a alternative for the EF 28-135?

[Cadwell]

If your brother really wants to buy a camera with which he intends to use only one lens, then perhaps an inter-changable lens dSLR is not the best choice for him. One of the "SLR like" fixed lens digital cameras might be a better choice.

[PatrickZ]

Cadwell, could you explain why a EF-S is not a good choice? As I understand this will only be a problem if he would switch to a full frame camera with no crop factor.

[Cadwell]

Cadwell, could you explain why a EF-S is not a good choice? As I understand this will only be a problem if he would switch to a full frame camera with no crop factor.

Nothing wrong with the EF-S lens as far as I know. My point was that if your brother wants a camera where he's never going to change lenses, then buying an interchangeable lens camera seems the wrong choice. If nothing else, buying a fixed lens camera would eliminate such annoyances as sensor dust/cleaning and you tend to get a wider range zoom lens on something like a Pro-1.

[PatrickZ]

ok, now I understand.

Two remarks:
1) one disadvantage of the pro-1 is the longer shutter response time (compared to DSLR). The short delay in my experience makes the difference between a nice and a great shot, especially when taking pictures of children.
2) also when he starts using the camera he might change his mind and buy an additional lens after all, and he won't be the first to increase his budget after reading this forum j/k

[Cadwell]

OK, well on that basis... when I am doing the "tourist thing" the lens I usually have on my camera is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Being fair, I normally have the 17-40L and the 70-200f/4L along as well though, so I suppose that's not much help :lol:

[Andy_T]

I would not get the EF-S 17-85 IS. According to all I've heard, it's not a bad lens, but I think that it is quite expensive for what it delivers.

If you really want to go the all Canon route, then you could for the same money as the EF-S 17-85 get the 18-55 kit lens AND the 28-135 IS. From the tests I have seen, the image quality of the 18-55 kit lens and the 17-85 IS are identical in the wide angle area with the 18-55 even having lower distortion on the wide end. If you go for the 18-55 and the 28-135 instead of the 17-85, you get IS and long reach.

If you are more keen on ultimate image quality and a usable f/2.8 aperture than on long reach and IS, then the way to go would be the 18-55 plus the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI (that's what I have chosen personally).

Best regards,
Andy

[J Rabin]

Having used these, and owned and sold the 28-135 IS, I would opine:
1st. There is no one lens solution without many compromises. Experienced folks on the Forum do not prefer compromises. For me, the compromise of a slow f/5.6 lens with IS vs. a faster short lens w/out IS was too great. I chose non-IS. Then benefit of IS is greater at greater focal lengths, 200mm, 300mm, etc. However,
2nd. The "IS" on the 17-85 is the NEW generation IS, potentially yielding 3 stops of shake reduction compared to the 2 stops on the 28-135. Between the two, if IS is important to a coffee drinker's hands, then the 17-85 beats the 28-135 hands down. I found the IS on the 28-135 not very worthwhile. It was a nice sharp lens with a flexible zoom range, but too slow for indoor events. That's it.
3rd. The 17-85 has a newer circular aperture (CA). As I've stated many times on the forum, all my CA lenses yield significantly nicer out-of-focus backgrounds vs. non-CA, even at smaller shooting apertures.
4th. The 17-85 has latest focus speed algorithms (the 28-135 focus hunted in low light, my 24-70L does not), latest EMG diaphgram, and the zoom DOES NOT CREEP while walking around like the 28-135 does.
All these features make the 17-85 worth more, and cost more. If 1.) focus speed, 2.) shake reduction, and 3.) wide angle ARE MORE IMPORTANT, then get the 17-85 and be happy. If 1.) low light use, 2.) creative control of DoF are important, and wide angle not, then get a Tamron 28-75 (28mm on a dSLR will still photograph a table at an event).

BTW, Because both the 17-85 and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lenses have 67 mm filters, and so does the Canon 70-200 f/4L, they make a nice travel kit that saves $70 by only carrying one circular polarizer.
Another ideal "two lens travel kit" is the Canon 17-40 f/4L and the Canon 70-200 f/4L, I use a a 67-77mm step up ring to share polarizer. Who needs 50mm when doing walkabout?

[PatrickZ]

J Rabin, thanks for you comments, they make a lot of sense!

[johnbs]

We have reduced the options to EF 28-135 or EF-S 17-85.

I have the 28-135, which I used a lot to start with, but rarely use since I bought the Sigma 18-50/2.8, which I find covers the main range I use much better, is higher quality, lighter and requires much less light.

I thought I would still use the 28-135 for the IS, but I find that IS is rarely a big advantage to me at this focal length, or for the 50-135 range, but I often just crop the picture in that case.

The Sigma is not my only lens, but the only other zoom I use now is the Canon 70-300 DO IS (expensive, but light for a telephoto zoom) when I know that I will be shooting objects at a distance.

I keep primes for indoor pictures in low light or where I know the distance I am taking pictures will be fixed.

John

[J Rabin]

The Sigma is not my only lens, but the only other zoom I use now is the Canon 70-300 DO IS (expensive, but light for a telephoto zoom) when I know that I will be shooting objects at a distance.

John. It's off topic, but how do you like the 70-300 DO? I've been looking for a compact travel zoom, to use handheld, and hear mixed things, some good, some soft, others saying just need to sharpen images more. I can't lug my 70-200L IS around, and all those 18-200, 28-200, 28-300 lenses seem to have far too many compromises. I was thinking of a 17-40L and 70-300 DO kit, with step ring to share polarizer? Leaves out low light, but can't have everything.

[tim]

I will do my best to avoid buying lenses slower than F2.8 in future, as the higher ISO settings lose detail and add noise. For action work or low light F2.8 is the minimum i'd consider, faster is better. I am considering the 70-200 F4L because of the price, though I might go with the Sigma 70-200 F2.8 instead.

IS doesn't make up for slower lenses (ie F4 and above) for action work, but it does for static or slow moving shots.

I got the Tamron 28-75 and i'm very happy with it.

[Zanders]

How about the new Tamron AF 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 for a walk around lens on a 350D? Anybody any excperience with this lens?

[ScottE]

If you just want one lens I would recommend the 17-85 because it covers the range from wide angle to short telephoto.

If you use a 28-135 or 28-70 lens you are not going to have a wide enough angle for many scenic type shots. I have a 28-135 that I often use as a walk around lens, but only when I have my 17-40 in a small camera bag for the wide angle shots. IS is a good thing and having a wide aperture f/2.8 lens is no substitute in low light. If you need f/8 or f/11 to get enough depth of field the wide aperture is not going to help you.

If you brother really get serious about image quality, he will be looking for either prime lenses or very expensive zoom lenses such as the 16-35 L, 24-70 L and 70-200 L. Right now he just needs a "do everything" lens that is a compromise of quality and price.

I would avoid lenses like the Tamron 28-75 that do not have full time manual override. If your brother gets serious about photography he will eventually switch to using autofocus on the * button so he can touch up focus manually whenever he wants. The only lenses that allow you to do this are Canon USM and Sigma HSM lenses.

Scott

[johnbs]

John. It's off topic, but how do you like the 70-300 DO? I've been looking for a compact travel zoom, to use handheld, and hear mixed things, some good, some soft, others saying just need to sharpen images more.

Well it does require some tradeoffs - it does need more sharpening, does not always behave well under difficult lighting, but the IS works very well and it often produces beautiful images and there is no serious competition that does not weigh much more. I highly recommend trying one out to see if you can live with these compromises.

John

[sodakred]

I'm new to the board. I've rekindled my interest in photography after 10 years of point-and-shoot by purchasing a 20D. I have the 17-85 EF-S as my primary walk-around lens and have found it to be very versatile and sharp. This after trying the 28-135 and and the 17-40. While the 17-40 L may be slightly better optically and more robust, I found myself wanted it to reach further too many times. To me the reach of the 17-85 on both ends is right in my personal wheel-house. Pretty nice for architectural-type shots, landscap and portrait/people. It is also a seriously stout lens. I also have it teamed with the 70-200 2.8 L, which makes for a nice kit. I'm considering the 10-22 "S" to round out the wide side and a 1/4 extender to round out the long side.
It seems that the biggest knock on the 17-85 is the "S" designation that eliminates its use on a full-frame camera. But on the 20D it is "hand and glove." I believe that Canon is committed to that platform; particlarly given the quality and apparent popularity of the 20D (which I think is superb).