Canon EF 28-135 vs. EF-S 17-85 - which is a better walkaround?

Hey Folks - Long time lurker (could you tell? ), but been picking up stuff and building up some better quality glass so I can get back into photography (I used to shoot alot of B&W stuff around 2002-2003). I know there are some FAQs about lenses, and I've spent some time reviewing, etc (I see that the two above are fairly close together on the walkaround lenses poll, but both are considered fairly low on the list, even though the list was supposed to be for starter lenses and a bunch of L glass showed up).

ANYways... I'm getting married in a few months, and I'm wanting to bring my T1i to Aruba with us and hoping to catch some great stuff. I like that the 17-85 will get me wider for landscapes, etc, but I like having the extra distance of the 28-135. I got the 28-135 first, and found a pretty decent deal on the 17-85 as part of a trade after the fact that I couldn't pass up.

My ultimate plan (hopefully) is to potentially sell one of these (and my 75-300 III) and put them towards a 70-200 F/4L, so that I'd have these two lenses in my bag, but that plan might change; I might just keep both in my bag, but it seems like the range is so similar/overlapping that this wouldn't be worth it.

Thoughts?

I can't comment on the 17-85, but I do have a 28-135 and generally find it too long as a walkaround. IQ is a bit hit and miss as well. I now have a 15-85 as a walkaround and it is great, I have not used the 28-135 since buying it.

just keep the 17-85 and add a 70-200 later, a fast prime of your choice will be a nice addition to this setup.

algold wrote in post #11842277
just keep the 17-85 and add a 70-200 later, a fast prime of your choice will be a nice addition to this setup.

I've thought of that a bit - as much as I'd like the added range from the 28-135, I'm pretty much leaning towards the 17-85 at this point. I just have no clue what prime I'd go with. I'd probably start with a nifty fifty for starters, but I feel like 50mm can be slightly restrictive in what you do (I guess any 'prime' would be restrictive though since you're at a fixed focal length, so that's not really fair to use as a point of discussion I guess).

I have both I much prefer the 17-85
congrats on the marriage

Jim

egraphdesign wrote in post #11842454
I have both I much prefer the 17-85
congrats on the marriage

Jim

Thanks Jim (For the advice and the well wishes )

AF on nifty fifty drives me nuts and manual focus is even less useful . Sigma 30/1.4 works for me as a walk around lens, Canon 28/1.8 will be fine as well.
my 17-85 sees more use than my 17-50/2.8 and I sold 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM, because it wasn't wide enough for a walk around lens.

I agree with comments above, the 28-135 has a nice range, but its just too long on the short end, I always had to carry around my efs 10-22 as I missed too many shots. I cannot talk about the 17-85, but since getting the sigma 17-50 I am yet to reach for the 28-135 or the 10-22.
You can always crop a image, but you cannot make it wider (without further processing)
Since pairing the sigma with the canon 70-200, its a great two lens kit.
One day I will sell all the other lens, but the 10-22 just takes to nice of a photo.
I also purchased the 50mm 1.8, as it was the 'must' have lens, I have honestly used it twice, the af infuriates me beyond belief, it collects dust in the bag.

Thanks for checking in Chugga!

Wow, it really seems like it's pretty one-sided. almost makes me wish I hadn't found my 28-135 deal a couple of weeks ago, I could have spent that on/towards a nice prime..

My vote goes for 17-85IS too

I used to own both of the lenses you're asking about. I liked the 17-85 for the range, especially for indoor work. But I had the 28-135 as my outdoor walk-around. That's the bad thing about having so many choices is that each one is also a compromise in some way. There is no one perfect lens that handles every situation. I'm intrigued by the 28-300 L, but it's a compromise too being variable aperture.

IMO my vote would be the 17-85. The range is much more usable on a crop. The 11mm difference on the wide end is huge. Just remember you could always walk closer to get the shot but you can't always walk back.

I actually happened to ask some photo buffs at another forum I frequent, and the majority of the consensus there too is that the 17-85 wins out under most conditions. I imagine I'll be able to find uses for both, but if I wanted to cut out a lens (or open up space for a 50D or something) then the 28-135 would probably get sold/left at home.

i had the 17-85 for a while and quickly found that it was pretty slow for anything indoors and there was a bit of distortion at 17mm. other than that it was a pretty good lens. fast and accurate focus and good build quality. i would saw keep the 17-85, sell the other 2 and buy a 50 1.8 then a longer zoom.

I will also throw mine opinion.... I had both 17-85mm and 28-135mm before... 28-135mm for me on my cropped camera was definitely to narrow... I sold it. I keep for a while 17-85mm and it was a good lens.... but finally I found it was to slow... and for a few buks more... I got Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and that was it.. I keep this lens for few years and it was my best walk around lens for me... Depend really what's your needs are.... if you like a longer zoom than 28-135mm is great... if you like wider lens... 17-85mm it's great... or few buks more and you can get fast Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 if you can live with short long end... only 50mm. I had before Tamron 17-50mm + Sigma 70-300mm APO and I was using this combination for at least 2.5 year.... with great results.