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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 21, 2005, 9:24 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Ponin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 139
Default

After reading about the fine quality of both these lenses, which do you think is better for a general-purpose walk-around lens?

EF-S 17-85mm USM or EF 28-135mm IS USM
__________________________________________________ ___________

After the walk-around lens, I was thinking of getting an EF-S 10-22mm and maybe a Sigma 70-200mm EX later on. I plan on doing more eclectic work: landscapes, architecture, wildlife, portraits, macros.

I have never used a telephoto before. For the Sigma telephoto, I see a piece of metal running along it. What is that used for? Monopod? Tripod mount? Is it absolutely necessary to have it mounted in order to use it or can one stabilize it using his hand?
Ponin is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:04 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 78
Default

To some degree it would depend on whether your using a full frame or 1.6 sensor camera. Obviously a 28-135 becomes a 45-216 on a 20D or comparable sensor. 17-85 becomes 27-136. I have owned the Canon 28-135 and I now own the EF-S 17-85. I thought the 28-135 was a pretty good lens but in terms of pure image quality the 17-85 outperforms it. After all it does have a double sided aspherical element which I think contributes to it's outstanding performance.

The other factor is which focal length combination is most useful to you.

tmumolo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 10:58 AM   #3
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

FYI - http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...24&forum_id=65


Ponin wrote:
Quote:
I have never used a telephoto before. For the Sigma telephoto, I see a piece of metal running along it. What is that used for? Monopod? Tripod mount? Is it absolutely necessary to have it mounted in order to use it or can one stabilize it using his hand?
It's a 'removeable' mount for both a tripod/monopod... and on a longer tele it's actually a handle for you to carry

The rule of thumb is 1/focal lenght, if you need to shoot faster than 1/300s anyway to freeze an action (for a 200mm zoom for example) then a tripod is not required, although you might still want a monopod to support the weight if the lens is any bigger!

Sometime you don't want to shoot too 'fast' of a shutter speed otherwise fast cars look like they are parking in a parking lot, but you would use panning instead to reduce the relative speed: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296

Here's @ 1/250s: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=30682
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 21, 2005, 8:16 PM   #4
Member
 
HeidiandHans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 57
Default

Ponin,

I'm in the same spot as you right now I've just got a response as to some wobble in the 28-135 lens (as much as a 1/4 inch) that turned me off to it. There is also a lot of talk about the new sigma lens (to be released soon). There is a link to it in one of these lens forums about them. Three new lens, I forget the numbers, Maybe someone has that link for you. Also I here nothing but good for the 17-85 IS USM Here's the links Click on the 18-200 on this site, it has my interest

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05...ma18-200dc.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05...gma10-20dc.asp


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021404sigma30dc.asp


HeidiandHans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 12:38 AM   #5
ret
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 25
Default

I have the 17-85mm and like it alot. Very sharp, the stabilization really helps.

I also have the Sigma 70-200 EX and love it. I find I have it on the camera about 70% of the time. It's fast and sharp with good focus. I leave the tripod mount on the lens and find I get a good grip on it. The only bad thing about this lens is the weight. After you've carried it awhile it weighs a ton.:-)
ret is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 23, 2005, 12:54 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Ponin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 139
Default

HeidiandHans wrote:
Quote:
Ponin,

I'm in the same spot as you right now I've just got a response as to some wobble in the 28-135 lens (as much as a 1/4 inch) that turned me off to it. There is also a lot of talk about the new sigma lens (to be released soon). There is a link to it in one of these lens forums about them. Three new lens, I forget the numbers, Maybe someone has that link for you. Also I here nothing but good for the 17-85 IS USM Here's the links Click on the 18-200 on this site, it has my interest

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05...ma18-200dc.asp

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05...gma10-20dc.asp


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021404sigma30dc.asp

That 10-20 looks very tempting to me. I am gonna be purchasing a super wide and need something with a shorter focal length because of the crop factor. I can't wait to find out more.
Ponin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2005, 10:59 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

Opinions are pretty cheap so here is mine. If my camera was a 1.6 crop factor and made by Canon and, if I could have only 1 lense, it would have to be the 17x85. I can use it in close and it has a reasonable tele factor for the other side of a room or yard. It is a good lense [not L lense] takes good shots, works well with flash and is reasonably stupid proof [good for me] The 10x22 is a great lense for is best as a 2nd lense as are the other tele lenses made by Canon.
The 28x135 does not let you in close enough [ on a 1.6 camera] and the 135 is not enough tele. for longer shots.
There, that's one mans opinion.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2005, 11:11 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Ponin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 139
Default

Golfer wrote:
Quote:
Opinions are pretty cheap so here is mine. If my camera was a 1.6 crop factor and made by Canon and, if I could have only 1 lense, it would have to be the 17x85. I can use it in close and it has a reasonable tele factor for the other side of a room or yard. It is a good lense [not L lense] takes good shots, works well with flash and is reasonably stupid proof [good for me] The 10x22 is a great lense for is best as a 2nd lense as are the other tele lenses made by Canon.
The 28x135 does not let you in close enough [ on a 1.6 camera] and the 135 is not enough tele. for longer shots.
There, that's one mans opinion.
I would say your opinion is quite valuable. I totally agree with you. When I purchase the XT or 20D, I will be getting the EF-S 17-85mm lens. It is a fantastic lens with great image quality. My second lens will be the 10-22mm EF-S lens by Canon. Hopefully, Canon's upgrade to the 20D will still be compatible with the EF-S lenses. That way I don't have to give up these wonderful lenses when I upgrade.
Ponin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2005, 5:32 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 75
Default

Golfer wrote:
Quote:
Opinions are pretty cheap so here is mine. If my camera was a 1.6 crop factor and made by Canon and, if I could have only 1 lense, it would have to be the 17x85. I can use it in close and it has a reasonable tele factor for the other side of a room or yard. It is a good lense [not L lense] takes good shots, works well with flash and is reasonably stupid proof [good for me] The 10x22 is a great lense for is best as a 2nd lense as are the other tele lenses made by Canon.
The 28x135 does not let you in close enough [ on a 1.6 camera] and the 135 is not enough tele. for longer shots.
There, that's one mans opinion.
I know this is an old thread but I just had to say ditto. I purchased the 28-135 IS with my 300D and now it is for sale. I have been agonizing over replacementts, since 28 doesn't let me close enough and 135 is just enough tele to frustrate.
So it looks like the best option might be the 17-85.

Curious to hear what everyone thinks on this.
If you were going to replace the 28-135IS with 2 "walking around" lenses (landcapes, buildings, youth sports, wildlife, etc) what would they be?

I plan to keep my 50mm 1.8 for portraits.
davedeal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2005, 10:40 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 544
Default

A recent convert from a point and shooter with an equivalent 38-380mm, I find the wide angle capability of the EF-S 17-85IS to be a wonderful capability. While I admit i miss the long reach of my old camera, I'll fix that with a medium range (70-200mm) zoom. Wide angle capability has added a new (pardon the expression) dimension to photography for me. I've used the 27-38mm euivalent capability more than I could have dreamed I would.

The EF-S 17-85IS is a near perfect match for the 20D to my way of thinking.
Wildman 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 1:36 PM.