Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

justageorgiaguy · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Cochran, GA

I want a good quality all around lens. I have an XT, and i'm debating between the Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00006I53S/qid=1124754373/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/104-2170039-1099128?v=glance&s=photo)

or

the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 Image Stabilized USM SLR Lens (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002Y5WXO/qid=1124754373/sr=1-10/ref=sr_1_10/104-2170039-1099128?v=glance&s=photo

does anyone have opinions good or bad on these lenses? I'd really love to get an L lens...but not yet...[/url]

supertramp · Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:11 pm

Wow. Hard choice here. The 28-135 will give you the reach you may need but the 17-85 will give you the wide angle that you may need.

My thoughts are to go with the 17-85mm for now. If you need to get up close, then walk up to it. This lens translates to about 27-136mm on film. Good range to start with. 17mm should be wide enough for some landscape work and the 85mm end will give you good working distance for portraits.

Then when you get a few more bucks to spend, look at the 70-300mm IS and later still, the 10-22mm.

Good luck, Wally

PS
Don't forget a tripod.

Tim · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 457 Location: Glasgow, Scotland

depends on what you shoot most!

Take a note of how often you need to zoom in further, and how far you struggle with wide angle. That'll tell you what zoom range you need.

If you plan on using a full frame/ 35mm film canon in the future, there is only one choice (28-135)

The IS of the 18-85 is better and I think has mode 2 (panning)

And then there's the new L :-D
Ahem... Good sounding lens.

justageorgiaguy · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Cochran, GA

I'm an all around shooter, but I would guess that I do more group or landscape shots, so I may go with the 17-85. Right now i have the kit lens that i like but it doesnt zoom enough, and I also have 2 sigma lenses - 28-80 and 70-300 but they are cheap although pictures look sharp on the screen, when i get back to my comp, i'm sadly disappointed with them.

i thought about if I ever go to a full framed camera, but by that time, i would imagine i could afford an L lens or two, because its gonna be a while unless one shows up cheap.

So far it looks like the 17-85 is the winner, it would combine the zoom range of the kit lens and the sigma that i use the most...and then I have the 50mm Canon for my portraits and when i need a fast lens.

Forgiss · Posted: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:51 am

the 17-85 is the replacement for the 28-135... so I would definitely goe for the newer lens

justageorgiaguy · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Cochran, GA

ah, very nice, thanks for that tidbit!

Paisleyrachel · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 304 Location: Niles, Michigan

I am shopping lenses right now, for the Canon 20d I have decided on, and I am leaning toward the 17-85, however I am running into a lot of kits for sale that also offer additional Sigma or Tamron lenses. I need some reviews from you all, not some magazine ad.

Mostly, I do portraiture, some macro and I love zoooooom but I also have a limited budget.

I am shopping right now (want to order this weekend) so can anyone recommend a good seller? I want to get the most bang for my buck and I'm not sure Ebay is the way to go (I buy from Ritz ) even though I would get loads of goodies in the kit that Ritz doesn't.

Not trying to hijack your thread but I don't want do waste my dough, you know?

Thanks for your help!

justageorgiaguy · Joined: 10 Mar 2005 Posts: 122 Location: Cochran, GA

I bought the sigma "kit" that has the 28-80 and 70-300 with a carrying bag...and I guess you get what you pay for. They are cheap lenses and most images turn out blurry and useless. They look good on the xt's screen, but once you get them on the comp, they arent the greatest. I have had some luck wih them, but i dont trust them at all.

Paisleyrachel · Joined: 03 Feb 2005 Posts: 304 Location: Niles, Michigan

Glad I asked- never considered a lesser quality lens before and now I am going to just bite the bullet and pay for the Canon lenses.

Have a good weekend,
R

costinc · Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 13

I recommend the 17-85 as well.
Or the 70-200 f/2.8 IS :)
Or the 100-400 IS :)

Forgiss · Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:54 am

As much as it pains me to say it, just be careful which Canon Lens you buy.... some of the cheaper lenses are really a dissappointment!

The 100-400 L is a really good lens if you need the distance.

pedrodiaz · Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 133 Location: Madrid, Spain

I have the canon 17-85 IS lens. Great for travel photography, quite happy with it. BUT I've had prominent vignetting problems sometimes.

By the way, I think that the IS on this lens is somehow not very useful, 85mm is not such a large focal lens. If IS would come free of charge I wouldn't complain, but it makes this lens way too expensive. Just my (amateur) opinion though ;-)

More reviews of this lens at http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=222

Cheers
Pedro

markhayes · Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 23 Location: Denver, CO

The 17-85 IS is the better of the two, even though the 28-135 gives more reach. You can always walk closer to something but sometimes you just can step back any.

When my kit consisted of a 300d and 20d I had one for each camera - my wife uses the 300d when on vacation so wanted to good everyday lens for both cameras.

When I upgraded to the 5d and kept the 20d as a backup, telephoto (when I need the 1.6 crop for more reach) and wifes camera - I of course had to sell one of the 17-85's since it was an EF-S lens and wouldn't fit the full frame.