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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 19, 2005, 7:30 PM   #1
Member
 
HeidiandHans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Default

Hello

Is there any difference between the quality of picture between the ef-s 17-85 F/4, and the ef 28-135 F/3.5both with IS USM? Also build quality andglass quality? I think I'm going to get the 10-22 canon later down the road$$$ or wait for a price and review on the new sigma 10-22, but in the meantime I want to purchase one of these two for a walk around and selling my ef-s18-55. I think the quality of the 18-55 is below par, unless it's my shaky hands? The 28-135 cost less $400and if it is as good as the ef-s 17-85$600and I end up with a 10-22 later?????I like taking outdoor photos with my dogs while hiking and canoing also wildlife, so having a walk around that can zoom further is better than a little extra wide angle, I think?? I have a 50mm prime and a 85mm prime also the 75-300 IS, I'm looking at finishing my set up with the lens's in question. I rely on you guysto keep me straight, sothanks for your help. One other thing, I think I'd only get $85 or so for the ef-s 18-55 so maybe I'd be better off keeping it?????
HeidiandHans is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 20, 2005, 4:09 AM   #2
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

I reckon it's probably a tie between the 2 lenses. The 17-85 has better contrast and resolution and will therefore be sharper. However the 28-135 is a full-frame lens so you get to use the sweet spot in the centre; therefore less CA and vignetting.

MTF chart for 28-135

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...0&tag_id=10108

MTF chart for 17-85

http://www.canon.com.hk/En/Product/P...1&tag_id=10515

The charts show that the 17-85 is excellent, but that the 28-135 is pretty good, particularly on the 1.6 crop. Also I suspect the difference in sharpness which favours the 17-85 may be small enough that a good example of the 28-135 may be better than a poor example of the 17-85. On the 20D much about sharpness depends on how you post-process anyway.

I believe that the IS on the 17-85 is 3rd generation whereas the 28-135 is 2nd generation. Canon say that 2nd gen => 2 stops IS and 3rd => 3 stops. I doubt it would make too much difference in practice.

But most telling for me is the extra zoom length, it sounds to me like you want it at the telephoto end and not the wide end so the 28-135 (*1.6 = 45-216) will be more suitable for you as your walk around lens.

So I suggest you go for the 28-135 and keep the 18-55 for when you want a wide-angle shot. At least until you get the 10-22 or Sigma 10-20.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 7:37 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

One thing about the 28-135 is this lens will 'loosen' up with use - The front element can wiggle at least 1/4" side to side, it's at the point now where the front part move up or down under its own weight! :?

Other than that it's a great value...
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:02 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Hum sounds like it is trying to become a lensbaby . :-):-):lol::blah:

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 10:45 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

They look very cool - do you have one?

I'm sure it'll be on my shopping list one day.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 20, 2005, 11:44 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

Not yet, but the price is low enough I think it might be a fun thing to try.

Get Holga quality images from your xxxx$ body :lol:

Peter.
PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 5:30 PM   #7
Member
 
HeidiandHans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Default

I must say, quality is a thing with me and a lens that wobbles, is not for me. I think I'm going to sit tight for a while and wait for the new Sigma to come out.I'm having a hard time with $800 for that canon 10-22. The 17-85 sounds real good, I just wished it was a little longer. Thanks for the info. :sad:
HeidiandHans 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 3:48 AM.