Best portrait/walkaround: 18-135, 18-200, 17-85

Looking to grab a good walkaround & portrait lens. Which of these three is the best as far IQ, speed, noise, etc... All three have IS, so that's even across the board.

($489) 17-85mm f/4.0~5.6 - Only one of the 3 with USM, but shorter than the others.
($448) 18-135mm f/3.5~5.6
($568) 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6 - Longest and most range, does it lack anything because of it?

I just ordered a 100-400mmL, and I'm looking for another lens to compliment the shorter end. I have a 18-55 & a 55-250, but I'd like to condense that down into one lens.

Which of the 3 do you feel is the best bang for the buck, and which would you avoid?

Thanks,

~Ace

Since you're listing EF-S lenses, consider the 15-85mm.

sbao26975 wrote in post #15610383
Since you're listing EF-S lenses, consider the 15-85mm.

That one's about $100 over my limit. I added the price for each above. The 18-200mm is stretching it for me, money wise, but I can swing it. I can't go over $2K, and the 100-400mm set me back $1,450.

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15610423
That one's about $100 over my limit. I added the price for each above. The 18-200mm is stretching it for me, money wise, but I can swing it. I can't go over $2K, and the 100-400mm set me back $1,450.

If you're not opposed to buying used, the 15-85mm can be had in your range.

Are you saying the 15-85 is better than the three listed above? If so, what sets it apart from the others?

The 17-85 IS is a very old design. I would rather buy the 15-85 for up to $200 more. Back before the 17-55/2.8 IS was available, a 17-85 and 70-200/4L was my combo.

The 18-200 has a really handy focal range, but, you can tell just by using he rear LCD just how soft its images could be. I do like how short its minimum focus distance is.

I only tried the old 18-135 in the store. It was OK. Wasn't able to compare it directly to the 18-200. No idea how good is the newer STM model is.

As for portraits, I only attempted it with my old 17-85 and my friend's 18-200 where I went for maximum subject to background separation and at the long end of the zoom. The 18-200's bokeh was worse than the 17-85 --- nothing smooth/creamy about it.

Given you just ordered a 100-400L, you shouldn't be wasting your money on cheap EF-s starter zooms. I would go with the 15-85 if you want a single, walk around zoom.

I personally went with a 10-22 and 17-55/2.8 IS and loved that combo to complement my longer glass, but, given how big the 17-55/2.8 is for the same focal range as a 18-55 kit lens, I can see going 15-85 instead.

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15610457
Are you saying the 15-85 is better than the three listed above? If so, what sets it apart from the others?

It has better image quality, mainly due to a less extreme zoom range. However, if your goal is to condense the 18-55 and 55-250 zoom range into one lens, it isn't going to go very far against that goal. I think it would pair nicely with the 100-400, leaving you only a 85-100mm gap, but then you'd have to bring the big 100-400 along more.

18-200 sounds like it would meet your goals well. There are also some great options from Tamron (18-270) and Sigma (18-250) that may be better choices.

I agree, for a single, versatile walkaround lens, the 15-85 IS USM is hard to beat... top image quality and wider than most (there's a significant difference in two or three millimeters at the wide end of things).

One of the best values in a walkaround lens, IMO, is a used 28-135 IS USM... It's a very nice lens that can be found for $200. A ton of these were sold as kit lenses on 40D and 50D, so it's easy to find them lighlty used and steeply discounted (sells new for around $450) . This is actually an EF lens dating back to the film days and far higher specification than most kit lenses. Rivals the image quality, AF performance, close focusing ability, and IS of the 24-105L, at roughly one fifth the price. It's just not as well built/sealed as the L, tho it's pretty good, Canon USM/mid-grade, which is a lot better than actual "kit" lenses.

The main "problem" with the 28-135 is that it isn't wide on a crop camera.... It's a nice, useful standard to moderate telephoto. If you need wider, pick up an UWA to complement it. A Sigma 10-20mm or Tamron 10-24mm might be found used within the remainder of your budget. A Tokina 12-24 can be found for $400 or so. All three sell new for between $450 and $500.

Of the lenses you listed, I'd consider the EF-S 18-135 the best of the bunch, but I'm not really familiar with the 17-85mm and old biases against that type of lens would keep me from ever buying a 20X zoom like the 18-200.

The current 18-135mm version has STM focus ("ST"epper "M"otor) , which is better than micro motor, but may or may not be quite as good as true USM. Canon has intro'd several STM lenses lately, though only the T4i camera can take full advantage of them (with AF of a sorts when shooting video).

According to your signature, you already have the most affordable portrait lens... the EF 50/1.8.

Have you considered selling off your 18-55, 55-250 and 75-300 to help pay for the replacement lens or lenses?

I hope you enjoy the 100-400 and whatever lens or lenses you get to complement it.

18-200 is not a 20X zoom!

I know it's not in your listed, but I vote. Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS. That lens is so worth the money if you can save up for it. They also go for a great price in the used market.

amfoto1 wrote in post #15610532
The main "problem" with the 28-135 is that it isn't wide on a crop camera..

the other "problem" with the 28-135 is that it isn't as sharp as the OP's current lens (18-55IS/55-250)

Thanks for some great info, guys!! B&H has a used 15-85 for $549, which is in the budget. I'm thinking this may be the choice unless something/someone changes my mind by tomorrow afternoon.

Actually, Best Buy has it new for $638 (on sale) and I forgot, I have $322 in gift cards!!

Ace and Deuce wrote in post #15610724
Actually, Best Buy has it new for $638 (on sale) and I forgot, I have $322 in gift cards!!

Easy decision, then. Enjoy.

Another vote for the 15-85