Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS or 17-85 F4-5.6 IS ???

I'm a new DRebel XL owner with only the kit lens. I'm thinking of buying one of these and would like some advise on these two or any alternatives. I mainly shoot family and travel pictures. I have a budget of approx. $500 (US). Any help would be appreciated.

I sold the 28-135mm some time back, and I regret it...

Steve

On a crop body, I think you'll like starting at 17mm. While the 28 zoom is one of Canon's most popular walk around lenses of all time, and is FF compatible (though not impressive at the edges on FF), if you're sticking to a 1.6 body, get the 17 zoom. Optically I like it better too, along with its 3rd generation IS. That said, let me balance this a bit by saying there are many satisfied 28135 owners. See this http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/178528135

I think the choice depends mostly on whether you will get most use from shorter focal lengths (ie. wider angle) or longer (ie. telephoto). I tend to shoot longer rather than wider so chose the 28-135 and kept the kit lens for wide shots. Your requirements may be different.

...Mike

Since you have the wide end covered with your kit lens I would get the 28-135.

I had the same question right after purchasing my Rebel. I went with the 28-135 for the following reasons:

1. The 17-85 will only work with the rebel and the D 20. The 28-135 will work with full-frame as well.
   
2. The kit lens can "fill in" from 18-28mm
   
3. The additional telephoto range seemed like a "no-brainer".
   
4. The price when I bought mine was actually a little lower than the 17-85.

I borrowed the 28-135, but ended up buying the 17-85. The 17mm wide end makes it a natural stay-on-the-camera lens, while the 28 is just not wide enough to work well for me -- I was always switching to the kit lens.

So I second the "if you want to be able to carry only one" aspect of the 17-85, which to me is very attractive.

The 17-85 is also slightly lighter: the 28-135 tends to creep when tilted down, while the 17-85 does not. That could be an age issue, tho; the 28-135 had a few years under its belt when I borrowed it, while the 17-85 is not yet 6 months old.

I would shoot a bit with the kit lens. If you find that a significant fraction of your shots are shorter than 28mm, I suspect you'll be limited by the 28-135. As an added bonus, the 17-85 is actually a little wider than the kit lens (apparently it measures closer to 16ish mm), so it doubles fairly well as a landscape lens.

One last item: The 70-300IS is getting good reviews, and while the 17-85 has some overlap, the 28-135 has a significant one. That may be a factor for your next lens; it was for me.

Thanks everyone for the information and advice. I can see from your mixed replies that either one would work for me. I guess I'll continue to sit and think for a while.

For the same reasons as others stated, I also chose a 28-135 over the 17-85. I have the kit lens if I need to go wider, but I've never really used it - maybe 5 times. The 28-135 works well for the price, but I'm starting to look towards the 24-105L; if you can double the budget, you may give it a look as well.

If you are really a wide-angle shooter, the 17-40L has a big following. The one we have in the office is my boss' primary lens for travel and family shots and does an excellent job.

Good luck!