[netronelson]

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.

[senu]

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

[netronelson]

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.

[RobDickinson]

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

IMO you have 70+ covered anyhow, go for the 17-50f2.8 tamron.

[jonnypb]

sigma 17-70? great lens

[dood]

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.

[netronelson]

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.