what should i do?!?

[JayKitty]

okay so im not getting the money yet for everything i was planning on buying. i was going to get the 20D with 17-85 lens, but my finances are not where i thought they were. i was thinking about getting the 28-135 IS lens instead. should i go ahead and get the 28-135 IS or will the 17-85 IS be worth the extra wait?

question : will the canon 28-135 lens be wide enough for just a walk around lens? i know everybody suggests to get a wide lens, but does that 11mm in focal length compare alot?

another question : if i were to wait and go with the 17-40 L, how does it compare to the 17-85 IS. does the 17-40 even have image stabalization - i could not find anywhere that said it does. and will the 17-40 be enough for focal lenth for right now, used as a primary lens.

please, if you have any other lenses you would suggest, do. i've done my research, and now i just need user opinions. thanks alot!

[ssim]

It would help if we knew what type of shooting you were doing, portraiture, landscapes,etc.

The 28-135 certainly has alot of mixed reviews. I've seem some awesome work with it while others are not happy with it. I think it depends on your copy of each one. Generally it is a fairly well respected lens overall.

I don't have any experience with the 17-85 but have seen mixed reviews on that as well. The 17-40 has very good reviews.

My personal experience is that IS isn't overly critical in a lense at the lower end of the focal lengths.

My recommendation in this type of focal lengths that you are making reference to is the 24-70 but it is expensive.

[condyk]

Sigma 24-70 2.8 or Tamron 28-75 2.8. Similar price, similar quality, similar happy smile on anyone's face. You'll be happy with either. The Tamron is smaller and lighter as a walk around. I went for the Sigma myself finally after recommending it here for the last couple of months. Never seen a poor quality shot from it yet. If you want more on the wide end Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 is a great buy and I was very tempted. These don't have IS but why would you need it in a standard zoom with f2.8?

The 17-40mm is a great lens too and I nearly bought one: similar ovgerall image quality to the 18-50mm. Great build and resale value. It doesn't have IS. The loss of 10mm at the long ende would count for me I think.

I didn't like my 28-135mm IS as the quality wasn't there. Focal range of the 17-85 IS is good, but I doubt it would compete with the other suggestions overall, though a safe buy I am sure. Certainly average to decent but no more. If you have better quality options dunno why you would buy it. Good travel lens.

[tim]

I agree, i'd rather have an F2.8 lens than an IS lens, the Tamron is great and the sigma has a good reputation. I've not tried the 28-135, though Bob Gross says if he had to use one lens to cover a wedding, that would be it.

[CorruptedPhotographer]

I was about to buy the 28-135, well I had intended on buying it, but @ the last minute my online dealer told me they were ouf of it. Well that was a blessing in disguise because I would rather have faster lens and would actually not prefer zoomz in the longn run. I beggining to understand why primes have a taste of thier own. I would say if you shoot a lot of landscape, go for the 17-40 L or the 24-70 (either Canon if you have $$ or Sigma). I have seen some reviews online stating that the 24-70 Sigma is better optically than the Canon version. In fact, a member on this board has done an extensive reasearch of both.

[jimchapin468]

I would like to see the research saying that the Sigma is better optically than the Canon 24-70 L. Overall sharpness/COLOR/contrast. etcc.. I do not believe it.

[condyk]

Jim

Go to http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/lenstests

... then look for his section on testing the Canon and Sigma 24-70's. It is 'interesting' to say the least. His tests are very objective ... it's not 'research' that says one is better than the other specifically. You can draw your own conclusions based on what you see.

At the end of the day, we all pay out our hard earned cash and take our choice. You may see £600/$1000+ worth of difference in the images there in favour of the Canon L. I didn't, so I bought the Sigma EX rather than the Canon L because the pictures it made looked better to me. There is no right answer to this one I guess.

Remember to click on the 'original' size option at the bottom of each test page or you are left looking at lots of postage stamp sized pictures!

He also tests the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, which I almost bought this week in preference to my Sigma 24-70 2.8, and the rather excellent Tamron 28-75 2.8, which I used to have previously. These are all serious 'competitors' to the Canon L, so a very useful set of tests indeed for the objective purchaser. I'd be happy with any of them ... or the 17-40 L, which is a nice walkaround on a 1.6x body if you don't want the extra length.

If someone is happy with their purchase then tests are largely irrelevent of course ... better spending time shooting; it's much more fun :lol:

[AjP]

I do have 28-135 and guess I'm lucky, 'cause I love this lense as walk around, sometimes I wish it could be a little bit wider... oh well
if you want best quality walk around lense, I agree with everyone 24-70 2.8L or Tamron or Sigma.... 17-40 L or 16-35 2.8L are awesome wide lenses but not enough for walkaround...

[JayKitty]

so you guys think i should just go with the tamron 28-75 instead of waiting for the 17-85 IS?

what lens will be best for me in the long run including quality, reliability, etc.

[xuxu1]

The 28-135 certainly has alot of mixed reviews. I've seem some awesome work with it while others are not happy with it. I think it depends on your copy of each one. Generally it is a fairly well respected lens overall

In most cases the results depend on the person behind it, not the "copy of each one".

The 28-135IS is a very nice lens for the money and it has IS which helps a lot in lowlight conditions. If used properly you can get outstanding photos.

ED

[JayKitty]

okay now im looking at the sigma 24-70 f2.8, but will that be wide enough for an only lens for a while?

[condyk]

Any single lens will be a compromise somewhere and you need to prioritise on what will suit your normal style and interests best.

My priority is length without loss of quality, so a wide is not that important. I had a great wide angle and found its 20-35mm range more than adequate. That's why I sold it and bought the 24-70mm: I knew I could get away with losing 4mm and gain quality of my standard range. BUT, if I was into buildings and landscapes then I would think different and major on something like the 12-24 Tokina Pro.

The SIgma 18-50mm is as good quality wise as pretty much anything out there and covers a valuable walkaround range. I was VERY tempted, but finally compromised on losing some width to gain some length.

So, you have some great options: the 28-135 is safe and decent range, but a bit dull quality wise (I had one), ditto the 17-85 IS. the Sigma and Tamron will be great quality wise ... you lose some width on the latter and some length on the former. The Tamron is light and the Sigma heavier. Compromises all, but that's life ...

A truly great buy, top reviews, but a tad more expensive, is the 18-50mm 2.8. Great build, great quality, great walkaround weight, great range, great speed ... maybe I should have got one after all :lol: :lol: No, I know I made the right choice for what I need.

The most important thing to remember is that the 24-70 looks like the most sexy lens of them all, with its clean lines and 82mm front glass :D

Best of luck.

[ed rader]

>>okay now im looking at the sigma 24-70 f2.8, but will that be wide enough for an only lens for a while?<<

i think it would be. since you yourself don't know the answer i suspect you'll adapt.

at one point the only lens i had was a canon 24-85 and i thought it was great for an only lens...

ed rader

[blue_max]

When I had a 85mm 1.8 lens, ALL my shots were taken with it. When I got more, they varied. There is nothing wrong with using a particular lens and in some respect, it helps you to get to know it.

Graham