AVForums

Our philosophy in our forums, reviews, podcasts and feature videos is to promote audio and visual excellence by gathering and sharing the best information and resources available.

Help

To begin please visit our help section »

Not a Member Yet?

It only takes a minute to start enjoying the benefits of AVForums membership, and it's free!

Member Log in

Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

Post Reply
Old 11-09-2007, 10:12 PM   #1
Member
 
netronelson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Experience Points:
6,184, Level: 18
Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Thanks: Gave 233, Got 134
Posts: 642
Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

Hello folks...

I'm looking for a walkabout lens to replace the kit lense on my 350d. I already have a 60mm Macro and the Sigma 70-300 dg apo lense so was looking for something inbetween these for general use and to stop the need for lense swapping all the time.

I have a budget of under £200 (and am happy with used lenses), and liked the build quality of the canon compared to the sigma (especially the USM) - so I narrowed it down to the canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 is or the 28-135 f/3.5-5.6

Somehow the 28-135 sounds like a better lense with the wider f stop and longer zoom range, but it's actually cheaper than the 17-85...

Does anyone have any experience of the two? Top tips and things to bear in mind?

Or even better, know of one for sale??

Cheers,

Nelson.
  Quote
Old 11-09-2007, 10:23 PM   #2
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hillingdon /Hayes, Middx
Experience Points:
47,154, Level: 53
Points: 47,154, Level: 53 Points: 47,154, Level: 53 Points: 47,154, Level: 53
Activity: 2.7%
Activity: 2.7% Activity: 2.7% Activity: 2.7%
Thanks: Gave 1,052, Got 2,970
Posts: 19,311
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

The 28-135 is the better lens.. but that is also because the 17-85 ( which i often defend) probably represents a missed opportunity by Canon to make a much better than kit lens especially given how much it costs

Saying that , It is better than the Kit , with a good build and USM and IS (which rocks) and AF is reasonably fast accurate and silent but as a lens, it inst the sharpest knife on the block and barrel distortion at 17mm is a bit naff (to be polite) : unless you get it really cheap it is often compared with the "Cheap but quite cheerful" Sigma 17-70 which is better VFM , and cheaper

It has been described as kit lens optics with IS by the POTN crowd but I think that is an indictment of it rather than fact
The Canon 17-55 which also has IS and USM and a constant 2.8 is in a totally different class ( but it costs £5-600+)!
I do have both the 17-85 and have use of the 17-55 ... no contest really

If you have a 70- 300 you would be missing out on the wide end by getting a lens which starts at 28mm ( on a crop) and its range overlaps with the sigma 70- 300
There is also the 24-105L but it isnt liked by everybody

Last edited by senu; 12-09-2007 at 6:07 AM.
  Quote
Thanks from:
netronelson (13-09-2007)
Old 11-09-2007, 11:47 PM   #3
Member
 
netronelson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Experience Points:
6,184, Level: 18
Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Thanks: Gave 233, Got 134
Posts: 642
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

Cheers senu - makes a change for the cheaper lense to be favoured(!)

I'll keep my kit lens, so i'll still have the wide if I need it, even at the lesser quality. Likely the next on the list after this is a 10-20, so that will quench that...

Anything with an 'L' is out of my league at the moment!


Nelson.
  Quote
Old 12-09-2007, 4:17 AM   #4
Prominent Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Christchurch , New Zealand
Experience Points:
13,103, Level: 27
Points: 13,103, Level: 27 Points: 13,103, Level: 27 Points: 13,103, Level: 27
Activity: 30.3%
Activity: 30.3% Activity: 30.3% Activity: 30.3%
Thanks: Gave 211, Got 515
Posts: 3,926
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

Why not the 28-105 cheapie, nice and sharp.

IMO you have 70+ covered anyhow, go for the 17-50f2.8 tamron.
  Quote
Thanks from:
netronelson (13-09-2007)
Old 12-09-2007, 8:52 AM   #5
Prominent Member
 
jonnypb's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Cumbria
Experience Points:
13,765, Level: 28
Points: 13,765, Level: 28 Points: 13,765, Level: 28 Points: 13,765, Level: 28
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Thanks: Gave 319, Got 590
Posts: 3,908
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

sigma 17-70? great lens
  Quote
Thanks from:
netronelson (13-09-2007)
Old 13-09-2007, 6:11 AM   #6
Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Hobart
Experience Points:
8,670, Level: 22
Points: 8,670, Level: 22 Points: 8,670, Level: 22 Points: 8,670, Level: 22
Activity: 0.3%
Activity: 0.3% Activity: 0.3% Activity: 0.3%
Thanks: Gave 13, Got 42
Posts: 897
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

If you 're keeping the kit lens for the wide end I'd go for the 28-135. Nice reach and IS make it a lot more practical than the 28-105. It's actually a good single lens to have if you must travel light.
  Quote
Thanks from:
netronelson (13-09-2007)
Old 13-09-2007, 12:30 PM   #7
Member
 
netronelson's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Experience Points:
6,184, Level: 18
Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18 Points: 6,184, Level: 18
Activity: 0%
Activity: 0% Activity: 0% Activity: 0%
Thanks: Gave 233, Got 134
Posts: 642
Re: Canon EF-S 17-85 Vs Canon EF 28 - 135??

Thanks for the help folks - i've gone for the 28-135...!

Let's see if IS is all it's cracked up to be...

Cheers,

Nelson.
  Quote
Post Reply



Thread information and display options
Thread Tools

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