Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 29, 2007, 4:45 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
Default

Hi everybody I'm looking for some advice on buyingacanon 28- 135mm IS or the canon 17-85mmIS lens to go with my canon 70-300mm IS lens I already have for my 40d Thanks to all ,Aan
ultranitwit2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 29, 2007, 10:33 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 69
Default

You need the 17-85mm for true wide angle coverage. Keep in mind your 1.6x conversion factor. There is also a new 17-55mm f2.8 IS if your budget can handle it.
ropp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 7:50 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
pj1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 2,914
Default

Hi Aan,

I have the 28-135mm lens, and I love it. But I've also seen many people happy with the 17-85mm lens. In general I'd say that for most people's photography the 17-85 covers a more appropriate zoom range (wider end).. and it matches your existing 70-300mm (less "overlap" - with more on the wide end).

I got the 28-135mm lens (rather than 17-85mm) because:
a) it was much cheaper when I was buying it
b) I bought my Canon 350D with kit lens (going to 18-55mm).
c) I wasn't sure if I would ever go full frame (now I doubt I'll ever go full frame, esp with the release of the 40D... and we'll see what the 50D brings! :?
d) a lot of my shooting at that stage was for children camps, and I prefer close ups / portraits (candids) of children rather than "posed group shots" - so I used the 135mm end MUCH more than the 18mm (or 17mm) range.
e) I now have the 10-20mm Sigma, which gives me a real ultra-wide "wide angle" option, and I have a good match of lenses for my various needs (i.e. if I go on a "landscape photo-shooting outing" I take my 10-20mm with 28-135mm lens OR if I go possibly where wildlife / birds might be, I take the 28-135mm with my 100-300mm lens)

Hope this helps. Both 17-85mm and 28-135mm lens perform VERY similarly in terms of sharpness, focus speed / accuracy (both have USM) both have IS- the 17-85 is newer and slightly more effective. Both same build quality. Both have similar max aperture settings.

28-135mm is 72mm filter size, 17-85mm is 67mm size. That might come into things if you have lots of useful (& / or expensive filters)...

Regards,

Paul

pj1974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 11:59 AM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
Default

Thanks Paul for sharing your knowledge and the great advice, I truly appreciate it,Alan
ultranitwit2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 4:09 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

In most respects it seems obvious that you should go for the 17-85.

It is essentially the same lens as the 28-135 but made for the crop cameras.

You already have the 70-300 so you have full coverage there, but you will be missing out on any wide-angle shots with the 28-135.

So if you're not sure then definitely go for the 17-85.

On the other hand this will likely be the lens that you keep on your camera most of the time. So if you don't need wide-angle and prefer the equivalent 35mm range of 45-200 then the 28-135 is a good deal. For some people (empirically I would suggest a minority) that is the range they like to work in.

But I repeat, if you are not sure then choose the 17-85.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 9:47 AM   #6
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

May be a different option (why not both? i.e. have your cake and eat it too):
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/1785isv18200os
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 31, 2007, 10:40 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 51
Default

Thank you peripatetic I'm definetly going with the 17-85mm. Almost all the advice I've had seems to bring out the same reasons for chosing that lens over the 28-135, thanks again,Alan
ultranitwit2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2007, 12:17 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 25
Default

hi how did you know about 17x55? it is more expensive but uses less light...
astral8 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:23 PM.