17-85mm vs. 28-135mm

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I'm going to be purchasing a canon rebel XT or a 20D in the next month or two, and I figure I'll purchase a 75-300mm IS and 100mm Macro lens to go with it, but I also need a good lens for basic use. Pictures of people, landscapes, houses, cars, ect. This is where I have run into a problem. Can anyone suggest any good lenses?

Right now my favorites are the 17-85mm, and the 28-135mm IS lenses. I'm leaning a bit towards the 28-135mm because it's around 200 bucks cheaper, but if the other one is that much better, I wouldn't mind spending the extra 200. Anyone know anything about these lenses? Used them before? And are there any others you'd suggest, or prefur to use over these? And of course, why?:D

Your help is much apprechiated. Thanks a bunch!

[markubig]

Check this thread out.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=56747

[Skip Souza]

I would go for the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR LD IF Di, instead of the 28-135. The Tamron is cheaper, faster, sharper. My wife has it and it a killer lens.
For the long lens I wish I had spent the few extra bucks and gone for the 70-200mm f/4 L. Faster, sharper and much faster focusing. If I needed more lenght I would hav added the 1.4x TC. My wife has the 75-300 IS and it is soooo sloooow focusing, very frustrating when shooting action.
As you can see I did it differently at first. I wish I knew then what I know now. Live and learn.

[thomasrhee]

If it HAS to be between those 2 lenses, just ask yourself 2 questions:

1. Would you rather have a little extra on the wide end or on the long end? Both lenses are similar in optical quality and they both have IS.

2. Do you have any plans on using this lens on film bodies? If you plan on using film bodies, this would rule out the 17-85mm.

My personal opinion on the 17-85 is that it is a nice general walk around lens but it is vastly overpriced especially when compared to lenses like the Canon 17-40/4L, Tamron 28-75/2.8, Sigma 24-70/2.8 Macro as well as the above mentioned Canon 28-135.

Personally, if it was me, I'd skip both lenses and go with a Tamron 28-75/2.8. It doesn't have the IS, but it is faster and sharper than the 2 lenses above. It's focal range will also be nicely compatible without much overlap if you should decide in the future that you would like to add a wide angle zoom such as a Canon 17-40 or a 10-22 as well as a telephoto zoom such as the Canon 70-200.

As for the telephoto lens you had in mind, Canon 75-300, I'd agree with Skip Souza's assessment and recommend the 70-200/4L. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 + Canon 70-200/4L combination will cost you roughly the same amount as the Canon 17-85 and 75-300.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Alright, great, thank you so much for your suggestions. I'll look into the tamron and 70-200L combo. Both of those are without the IS right? Must be because the 70-200 with IS is around 1700 I think....
Thanks a lot for the info, I'll look into those right away.

[MrChad]

I wanted to revive this thread more for a technical performance of both lenses.

Knowing that the Canon EF-S is a better IS system then the 28-135mm version how to they compare optically? Is the newer EF-S 17-85mm version better then the 28-135mm in color and sharpness?

Also does the newer lens AF faster then the 28-135mm version?

(I'm looking into getting the 10-22mm Canon and it made me wonder if you have the 10-22mm EF-S and a 75-300 or 70-200mm zoom you could do either of these above zooms, but which would be optically better?)

Anyone had the opetunity to use them side by side?