May I ask for your opinion?(lens choice for Xti)

Yesterday I purchased an XTi for my honey from B&H. At home I attached the 50 f/1.4 and she really loves it. Though 50mm is a great lens, but I also want to get something for versatility (my 28-300L is a bit too big for her) as she gets acquanted with the camera and dSLR. Later on we can contemplate 24-70 or 24-105, but at this point I thought of 17-85 and 28-135. Both a bit slow and have IS. One is designed for ASPC the other is more versatile but not wide enough. There are pros and cons for each. I haven't done much research, but are there any gotchas or something that I need to be concerned with about either of those?

Many thanks for your time and sorry for creating one of those silly "what do you think" threads

What about the 17-55 2.8 IS ? Might be to expensive but then you don't have to buy another lens is she uses it for just casual stuff..

the 17-85IS is pretty sharp for its class and I love it as all around lesn .

If I have to limit myself to only one lens , I would definitely choose it .

there is severe distortion at 17mm of it but it is easily corrected on PS.

I think it is a good compromise , this lens ' IS is really effective , I think I can hand hold at SS 1/2 at 17mm .. so it is a slow lens though, the IS makes up for it .

As for the 28-135 IS , the IS on this is older generation of IS and it is less effective than that of the 17-85IS.

Also its AF is quite slow compare to the 17-85 IS.

If you prefer ultimate optical quality to versatility, Tamron 17-50 is a quaite good lens and Sigma 17-70 is good too.

I personally have had a 17-85IS and 18-200 Sigma , with 2 primes (EF50mm F1.8) and Sigma 30mm F1.4 , and considering getting a Tamron 17-50or Sigma 17-70 (I used to have the Tamron and sold it to my sister ).

I think Sigma lenses at least all my copies are pretty sharp , much better focusing than the lousy EF50F1.8 (this lens is over rated) , this focuses very slow and hunt alot in low light .

Also , the new Sigma 18-50 EX DC macro is so sharp and maybe better choice than the Tamron since it's got a nice close-up feature not true macro 1:1 , though.

Panza wrote in post #2895804
What about the 17-55 2.8 IS ? Might be to expensive but then you don't have to buy another lens is she uses it for just casual stuff..

I would go with that choice, too, but it might not be in your price range.

Out of the two lenses that you mentioned in your post, I would say go with the 17-85. Although the 28-135 is a pretty good lens, as you mentioned in your post, it simply is not wide enough. My friend's girlfriend has the 28-135 on her XT, and when I shoot with her, I always find her backing up to get shot for WA perspective. I personally owned the 17-85 when I had my 20D, and it was a pretty good lens for what I used it for (cityscape and landscape photography). I didn't use the IS too much because I would lug my tripod with me when shooting at dusk or at night. Plus, the 17-85 will give you a much more broader range to work with since it's a 27-136 in 35mm equivalent compared to the 28-135 which is 44-216 35mm equivalent.

If you can afford it, go with the 17-55. It's fast, sharp and above all, it has IS. If you can't afford the 17-55, then I'd personally go with the 17-85 (unless you still have your "kit" 18-55 lens to use for WA work if you were to go with the 28-135).

Of the two, I'd go for the 17-85. I've got one as my walkabout and it's been very good to me. Nice useable range, and the IS comes in handy.

the 24-70 L is a very heavy lens.... compared to the 17-85

the 17-85 is a good one it was the first lens i used with my 30D...

28mm is not wide on a crop. I'd consider a wider zoom like a Sigma 17-70, nicer optically in my view compared to a Canon 17-85. Other options are the Tamron 17-50 or a Canon 17-55IS. The Canon 17-55 IS is a bit expensive though.
Good luck

I would buy either the tamron 17-50 or sigma 17-70

Thank you very much for your opinions. Price isn't a factor, but I would prefer my wife to get used to the camera operation, take pictures with a zoom and prime and then decide which better fits her creativity. I'm happy to pick up 17-55, but it looked a bit large, at least for now. It may very well be the lens she would like in a month or two, but at this point I narrowed to this two. It seems like 17-85 overwhelmingly popular comparing to 28-135 (on cropped body, of course). Thank you very much, I'll pick one up tomorrow.

Regards, Chancellor.

I tried 18-50 f2.8 dcex Macro , this one was so sharp , I think this one is definitely much better than I thought it would be.

I probably order this one , this is like between the Sigma 17-70 and the Tamron 17-50, you can have both the macro of the 17-70 and the constant f2.8 of the tamron.

If I dont change my mind , I will buy it on Thursday before going to Burma.

Have a good one , I will go bed.

The 17-85mm IS seems like a good "chick" lens - fairly good IQ, lightweight, and IS to steady her hands if whe has had a few Amstel Lights.

Spare me the lectures - it is only a joke.

Agree

17-85 IS

IF you get a good copy a very good lens for non critical subjects without a lot of straight lines or right angles

I'll keep the "chichk" lens in mind Thank you all!