17-85 vs 18-135

I have both of these lesnses. I used the 17-85 for years on my 30D. I just upgraded to a 60D and it came with a 18-135. Both are IS / USM, so given the choice, which would you use as your every-date walk around lens?

I plan to upgrade to a 24-105 at some point in the future, but for now, this is what I have.

I'm pretty sure the 18-135 is not USM (you might have the STM version). Still, it's what I'd use instead of the 17-85.

yes, you are correct, the 18-135 is not USM (oops).

I think I would go with the 18-135 for it's longer focal range. I think they are pretty close optically, and the only advantage the 17-85 has is the USM AF and Full Time Manual focus.

You can compare them at various focal lengths and apertures here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=1​&APIComp=1

I sold my 17-85 to get the 18-135. dont have any regrets

I would sell both and get a EFS 15-85mm IS instead.

I have one for sell... you should buy it

Scott M wrote in post #15358497
I would sell both and get a EFS 15-85mm IS instead.

That is a good point
the 15-85 a great lens for the crop bodies
sharp and wide

15-85 is good.

17-85 is not good. I had one. The distortion, image quality, and build quality is so shotty. I believe the 18-55 is actually sharper than the 17-85.

End result, if I was to sell one to go for a 15-85, i'd most likely go for 24-105. I would need to keep at least the 17-85 or 18-135 so my daughter can use it on my 30D.

However, for now, I am going to just plug along with these two lenses.

Scott M wrote in post #15358497
I would sell both and get a EFS 15-85mm IS instead.

Upgraded to 15-85 months ago. Still trying to sell the 18-135. I'll never use it again.

Justin_NJ wrote in post #15359979
End result, if I was to sell one to go for a 15-85, i'd most likely go for 24-105. I would need to keep at least the 17-85 or 18-135 so my daughter can use it on my 30D.

However, for now, I am going to just plug along with these two lenses.

Unless you have immediate plans to move to full frame, the 15-85mm is a better fit than the 24-105L for a crop body, IMO. I would find 24mm not wide enough for a walk around lens on a crop -- it's terrific on full frame, though. Some people do not shoot wide, so you may be okay, but it is something to seriously consider.

Scott M wrote in post #15361391
Unless you have immediate plans to move to full frame, the 15-85mm is a better fit than the 24-105L for a crop body, IMO. I would find 24mm not wide enough for a walk around lens on a crop -- it's terrific on full frame, though. Some people do not shoot wide, so you may be okay, but it is something to seriously consider.

How is the picture quality of the 15-85 compared to 24-105L. I would expect the L lens to provide much sharper pictures.

Justin_NJ wrote in post #15364087
How is the picture quality of the 15-85 compared to 24-105L. I would expect the L lens to provide much sharper pictures.

The two lenses should be comparable. I owned the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS, and it was at least as good a lens as the 24-105L -- in some ways, it was better (less distortion, vignetting and CA at the wide end when compared to the 24-105L on a full frame). The 15-85mm is optically comparable to the 17-55 f/2.8 -- it just isn't a constant f/2.8. Instead, it has a wider focal range.

If I had not already owned the EFS 17-55 f/2.8 when the 15-85 came out, the latter would have been my preferred walk around lens when I was shooting with only a crop body. The only reason I moved to the 24-105L was because I bought a 5D3.

I'm trying to decide btw the 17-55 and the 15-85... the fixed ap is the main reason i want the 17-55, but I'm afraid I won't have the reach. It's such a hard choice!