Users of EF 28-135 USM IS and ...

I initially was going to go with 2 lenses on my new to me 20D. They were going to be the 18-55 and 55-250 EF-S IS. After doing more research I started to lean towards the following 3 lenses:
1. 17-55 IS USM F2.8
2. 24-70L USM F2.8
and lastly the EF 28-135 USM IS 3.5-/.5?
Anybody have input on one or more of these lenses?

There is no need to get all 3 of these lenses -- it would be quite redundant.

Your best bet is the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's an outstanding lens.

Bryan

bps wrote in post #8334262
There is no need to get all 3 of these lenses -- it would be quite redundant.

Your best bet is the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's an outstanding lens.

Bryan

Bryan, thanks. I am only going to purchase one of the 3. I have been reading many good things about these 3 lenses and was looking for feedback from actual users such as yourself to narrow down my choice.

My first lens was the 28-135. Great lens that served me well. Then I added the 70-300 for longer range but the 28-135 was still on the camera the most. Last year I bought the 17-55 and the 28-135 has sat in the closet ever since. I should really sell it but it served me so well that I can't quite bear to part with it yet. My 17-55 now sits on my camera about 90% of the time but both are always in my bag.

40d wrote in post #8334498
My first lens was the 28-135. Great lens that served me well. Then I added the 70-300 for longer range but the 28-135 was still on the camera the most. Last year I bought the 17-55 and the 28-135 has sat in the closet ever since. I should really sell it but it served me so well that I can't quite bear to part with it yet. My 17-55 now sits on my camera about 90% of the time but both are always in my bag.

What type of photography are you using the 17-55 for? I mainly plan on using it for travel, kids soccer games and general stuff.

i own the 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS and just spent 2 days walking around San Francisco. I found I used the 18-55 probably 85% of the time due to focal length. The 55-250 was just too tight to be using on city streets. I would find myself in a tight spot (standing very near my subject) and then putting the 18-55 to my eye, and it would all just magically be in the image. I now find myself looking for a 10-22! So if you are looking at using it for travel, I would recommend the 17-55 range, it really is great.

eos650 wrote in post #8334528
What type of photography are you using the 17-55 for? I mainly plan on using it for travel, kids soccer games and general stuff.

17-55mm would be excellent as a travel and general-all-purpose lens.

However, having shot a lot of soccer games, I can tell you that you're going to need a lot more length than 55mm. That aint gonna cut it by a long shot....unless of course you're the ref running around on the field taking pictures while you ref!! If the field is a kids mini field, the 28-135mm will work fine....but not so well on a full soccer field. If find that my 70-200 and 35-350 are on my camera the most when going to shoot any kind of sporting event.

On a 20D, I'd definitely take the 17-55 over the 24-70. That's a no brainer, IMHO. Price is similar, but the extra-width and lighter weight will definitely serve you better in the 17-55. Comparing either of these to the 28-135 is a little like comparing apples and oranges, since they are quite a bit different in price and intended function.

650.
My 40D came with the 28-135 IS USM.
Although not the widest for a crop lens, I enjoyed getting more reach on the long end.
This really comes in handy as a "walk around" lens.
I decided it was time to upgrade and was looking at the Canon 17-55 f/2.8.
This comes highly recommended by many here on the forum.
This is the top of the line for Canon at the focal range.
2.8 is wonderful.
I bought this along with another "longer" lens, the Canon 24-105 L f/4.
Though similar, they are different.
I actually find I use the 24-105 more.
Of the three on your list, 17-55 2.8

My philosophy on lens purchasing...

My philosophy on lens purchasing is to first purchase the very best mid-range zoom lens that you can afford.

I originally shot with a 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens on my 10D. It is a really nice lens but, is as has been mentioned above, not wide enough to be used as a single lens on a 1.6x camera. Adding a wide angle like the 12-24mm f/4 Tokina makes a nice focal range combination. However these lenses are fairly slow and I really like a mid-range zoom with a constant f/2.8 aperture.

My favorite general photography and travel combination is the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens along with the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

The constant f/2.8 aperture and latest IS capability of the 17-55mm lens makes it a really nice low light lens as well as a great general purpose lens.

The IQ is awesome and the approximate 28-88mm equivalent focal range is very useful.

Thanks for all the replies people. It seems it is the same dilemma. 2 lenses. I will either go the route of the ef-s 18-55 and 55-250 IS for one set or the 17-55 USM IS and the Tamron 28-300 VC (already own) for the time being and then later adding the 70-200.

Seems that not many fans of the 17-85 IS USM lens out there.

eos650 wrote in post #8336231
Seems that not many fans of the 17-85 IS USM lens out there.

Well, you didn't mention that lens as one of your buying options!

It seems to me the 'intent' of that lens is for people wanting an upgrade from their 18-55mm kit lens....but aren't ready to pay 17-55 kind of money.

I think if it had ring-motor USM it would score a few marks higher.

Does your 20D have no lenses with it at present and you're trying to figure out what to buy first?

I would get the 17-55 and 24-105 if you shoot a lot indoors, events, or people.

If you do a lot of outdoor shooting, you may want to get the 55-250.

BeritOlam wrote in post #8336726
Well, you didn't mention that lens as one of your buying options!

It seems to me the 'intent' of that lens is for people wanting an upgrade from their 18-55mm kit lens....but aren't ready to pay 17-55 kind of money.

I think if it had ring-motor USM it would score a few marks higher.

Does your 20D have no lenses with it at present and you're trying to figure out what to buy first?

Sorry, I thought I listed that lens also. I really do not have any good lenses at the moment and yes, I am looking for the first lens.

eos650 wrote in post #8334223
I initially was going to go with 2 lenses on my new to me 20D. They were going to be the 18-55 and 55-250 EF-S IS. After doing more research I started to lean towards the following 3 lenses:
1. 17-55 IS USM F2.8
2. 24-70L USM F2.8
and lastly the EF 28-135 USM IS 3.5-/.5?
Anybody have input on one or more of these lenses?

I just went through the same thing.

Depends on what you shoot. I don't shoot wide that often, and most often shoot long, so the 17-55 is too short for me (though beloved by many). If you prefer longer like I do, then you have the 17-85 (which is not great by most accounts), the 24-105 which is great, by most accounts and the 28-135.

I just got the 28-135 which, I am very surprised about, is sharper than the kit 18-55IS or my beloved 55-250. My rationale for this lens was at $250 used, it's a lens I can play with and see if I'm comfortable. If I decide to resell it, it's not much of a loss. Also, I'm not yet sure I'm comfortable toting around $1000 glass (all my current lenses are under $400 individually -- 35/2, 85/1.8, 55-250, 18-55, and now 28-135 for a walk-around). But, it is slow (Get's to 5.6 very quickly), and has "zoom creep" -- and by this, I mean when it's point down, the lens extends instantly to the full focal length. It's used, so maybe a new one would be tighter. But, it's got a great feel, fast AF compared to the kits, and has nice color and reasonable sharpness (not as sharp as my primes, but OK). That 24-105 does keep calling, though...

eos650 wrote in post #8336766
Sorry, I thought I listed that lens also. I really do not have any good lenses at the moment and yes, I am looking for the first lens.

It might be good for you to tell us what you already have. It seems to 'evolve' as we go along!

If you are aiming for *one* all-in-one lens as your first, you might think about the Canon 18-200mm. The optical and build quality are not on par with the 17-55, 24-70 or even the 28-135. If you don't mind swapping lenses, the 18-55 and 55-250 combo is probably a little better. But some people want that *one* lens that does it all....and the 18-200 was made for that very reason.