Canon 28-135 IS USM Lens

Jaetie wrote in post #2087310
all will mount, but if you put an ef-s lens on a non aps-c body, it will damage your camera.

I was writing the same answer. Not all EF and EF-S lenses works with all EOS camera's.

cjm wrote in post #2087516
Which one is that? Obviously not the L version but which one?

Sorry, that was dumb on my part. I meant I would go with the 28-135 that led me to start the post. But there was still some doubts, so I didn't order. This morning it really sunk in about the 17-85 being better designed for the sensor (hope I said that right), and Canon advertises it as the replacement for the 28-135.

Ok, now I've totally lost my mind. Perhaps I should start a new thread, but what about the Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens? It's only $685 and might just be a final walk-around-lens solution for both the Rebel 300D and the new xTi I'll be getting next month. Any thoughts? I mean, we're already into some serious money (for me) with either the 28-135 or the 17-85. For a little more, I'd be getting an "L" lens. But once again, I have that feeling I'd better ask...

After comparing my 28-135 IS to the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 for colour, contrast, bokeh and crispness, it is the only lens I regret purchasing. It's a 'just okay' lens if stopped down to f/8 - too slow for most applications. I should have saved money spent on this lens and bought the 24-70L if I was to stay with zooms.

F/4 may be fine if you only walk around in bright daylight.

I'd go with the 17-40. I really really like it as a walk around and wideangle lens. I tend to prefer wide, as a caveat. (if you like the longer end, this proabably isnt' the best, but remember that wide is usually better for around town type stuff, imo anyway. ) As a note, I have a 28-105 as well, that I more or less replaced with the 17-40. I haven't felt a need for the longer end of the 28-105, though I do have telephotos that I can switch to were I to need. Also, I have found that the f/4 on a wide angle lens really is not at all limiting-- if you follow 1/shutter speed, you can easily drop your shutter to 1/40 and below without having shake.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2089928
I'd go with the 17-40. I really really like it as a walk around and wideangle lens. I tend to prefer wide, as a caveat. (if you like the longer end, this proabably isnt' the best, but remember that wide is usually better for around town type stuff, imo anyway. ) As a note, I have a 28-105 as well, that I more or less replaced with the 17-40. I haven't felt a need for the longer end of the 28-105, though I do have telephotos that I can switch to were I to need. Also, I have found that the f/4 on a wide angle lens really is not at all limiting-- if you follow 1/shutter speed, you can easily drop your shutter to 1/40 and below without having shake.

Well, thanks for the comments. I'm still evaluating these posts and looking for more reviews on all three of these lenses.

On a 1.6x crop camera the 17-40 L is similar to a 27-64mm lens on a Full Frame body. That said the 40mm on it is not much of a zoom at all. It is one of the best lenses out there, and probably the best under $1000 but the 40mm is very limiting.

17-85 IS is probably the best for your situation. Because it has lots of reach. The 28-135 IS is also not bad either.

Then there is this lens, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=224488 which might be the best all around if on a tight budget.

However if you can spend about $1400 on lenses, buy the 17-40 L and the 70-200 f4 L and never ever look back. Those are the best money can buy for a reasonable price of under $700 each.

cjm wrote in post #2090320
On a 1.6x crop camera the 17-40 L is similar to a 27-64mm lens on a Full Frame body. That said the 40mm on it is not much of a zoom at all. It is one of the best lenses out there, and probably the best under $1000 but the 40mm is very limiting.

17-85 IS is probably the best for your situation. Because it has lots of reach. The 28-135 IS is also not bad either.

Then there is this lens, https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=224488 which might be the best all around if on a tight budget.

However if you can spend about $1400 on lenses, buy the 17-40 L and the 70-200 f4 L and never ever look back. Those are the best money can buy for a reasonable price of under $700 each.

Well, I've done it. I ordered the 17-40 L.

About all I have done the past 8 waking hours is review sample pictures on pBase.com.

Now I understand why the "L" lenses are so much better. In two words: color and sharpness, the kind of color and sharpness I've never been able to achieve with my cheap Tamron 19-35 or my cheap Canon 75-300 zoom. Everyone says the lenses are also built much sturdier than the non-Ls and hold their resell value much better. In short, I think this is more of an investment purchase than a non-L would have been.

Another factor is that it is better suited to the xTi I'll be getting soon, and I believe once I add the 70-200 L that should be quite a toolchest. My Sigma DG 105 macro is just fine for now. It cost $686 on Amazon.com, but I'll get back about $25 in commission since I bought it from my own online Amazon store.

Ahhh, how nice to have finally decided.

Thanks to all!

WorldCountries wrote in post #2090592
Well, I've done it. I ordered the 17-40 L.

About all I have done the past 8 waking hours is review sample pictures on pBase.com.

Now I understand why the "L" lenses are so much better. In two words: color and sharpness, the kind of color and sharpness I've never been able to achieve with my cheap Tamron 19-35 or my cheap Canon 75-300 zoom. Everyone says the lenses are also built much sturdier than the non-Ls and hold their resell value much better. In short, I think this is more of an investment purchase than a non-L would have been.

Another factor is that it is better suited to the xTi I'll be getting soon, and I believe once I add the 70-200 L that should be quite a toolchest. My Sigma DG 105 macro is just fine for now. It cost $686 on Amazon.com, but I'll get back about $25 in commission since I bought it from my own online Amazon store.

Ahhh, how nice to have finally decided.

Thanks to all!

Congratulations

I lean towards the 17-85 (long term owner and not going to give mine up) because of the extended reach and IS. I also have the 17-40 to shoot on full frame (no crop factor, so 17mm is staggeringly wide), but I have tried it on my 350D and yes, there is plenty to love about that lens. I would write it up in words but you have to feel it for yourself and you'll get that opportunity soon..

70-200 is a good pairing as well. This is the classic combo loved by many.. I figure, it's for a reason!

Lightstream wrote in post #2090630
Congratulations

(no crop factor, so 17mm is staggeringly wide)

Shooting film with the 17-40 is marvellous, and when I luck out and get into Photo 1 I look forward to slyly getting shots no pentax + 50mm could .

Lightstream wrote in post #2090630
Congratulations

I lean towards the 17-85 (long term owner and not going to give mine up) because of the extended reach and IS. I also have the 17-40 to shoot on full frame (no crop factor, so 17mm is staggeringly wide), but I have tried it on my 350D and yes, there is plenty to love about that lens. I would write it up in words but you have to feel it for yourself and you'll get that opportunity soon..

70-200 is a good pairing as well. This is the classic combo loved by many.. I figure, it's for a reason!

Do you have any good shots posted that you took with the 17-85?

Two major issues I had with the 28-135, and the reasons I sold it:

1) Zoom creep.. if you held it around your neck it woudl zoom to max length, this always got on my nerves. The lens really needs a zoom lock.

2) HEAVY AS HELL!! The lens is just heavy for its size.

Other than that the lens always did me right.

WorldCountries wrote in post #2090592
Well, I've done it. I ordered the 17-40 L.

That's great! When you get it, you'll be blown away with how sharp it is. You'll be convincing yourself to get the 70-200 L as soon as possible also you should someday if not already look into getting a 430ex flash that combined with a 17-40 makes a even better thing better (at least indoors). That sigma you have, I wouldn't replace it unless serious into macro and want the 180 L macro or MPE-60 macro lens. If you do, remember my name and sell it to me for a good price

savone wrote in post #2090679
2) HEAVY AS HELL!! The lens is just heavy for its size.

Really? I found it to be one of my lightest lenses. Its lighter then the 17-40 and deffinately lighter then the 24-70 f2.8 lenses. The zoom creep was somewhat annoying but I rarely ever have my camera around my neck and when I do I carry it rather then kink my neck with a camera.

Lol.. if a 28-135's already heavy as HELL, then you probably wouldn't even be able to lift a 70-200 f/4 seeing how it's a staggering 1.6lb (30% heavier than 28-135)! Either way, the 28-135 is a great walk around lens for me when I first started out on a very tight budget and didn't need really wide angles. And though it's not as sharp as L, it's definitely one of the best non-L regular zooms out there. Of course, now my eyes keep setting their sights on the thin red lines....

cjm wrote in post #2091099
That's great! When you get it, you'll be blown away with how sharp it is. You'll be convincing yourself to get the 70-200 L as soon as possible also you should someday if not already look into getting a 430ex flash that combined with a 17-40 makes a even better thing better (at least indoors). That sigma you have, I wouldn't replace it unless serious into macro and want the 180 L macro or MPE-60 macro lens. If you do, remember my name and sell it to me for a good price

I also like the Sigma. It's the first fairly pricey lens I bought, and, of course, I noticed the difference right away. But if I do want to sell it, I'll let you know first.

Well, Tuesday is going to be a long time coming, I can tell you that. I found some landscape pics on pBase.com taken by somebody with the 17-40 L on a 300D, and they looked great. Lots of the indoor pics looked great, also. The ones taken with 20D and 30Ds totally blew me away.

I spend the entire day with the 300D taking pictures of the farms and mountains around here (Las Cruces, NM). I honestly believe I've learned more about photography in the past four days than I have in the year I've had the 300D. Today's experiment was how to get full depth of field from the foreground into infinity, not always possible, but the results were about 20 times better than what I've been able to do in the past, either with the Tamron 19-35 or with the el cheapo Canon 70-300. Last night I spent about three hours finding the best settings for taking a picture of my desk in room light with no flash. One thing I can see is that I've been way too shy in the past about bumping up the ISO when necessary. The extra noise is just a necessary evil, I guess, even though I don't notice it. Today was a little cloudy and probably would have been better done with 200 ISO instead of 100.

I'm really sick of getting just so so results.

Can't expect miracles from the 17-40 L, but I know it's going to be a lot better.

Now the next question arises. Should I even get the xTi. Why not bite the bullet and get a 20D or 30D? Hmmmm....