17-85mm or 28-135mm

silverapple · 6th May 2006

I wonder if anyone has these two lens and able to post some pictures for comparison ? I was at the shop testing out the 17-85mm - very good pictures. I wonder if the 28-135mm has the same quality ? Decide to get one of them to go with my new 350D ... but dunno which one

Isaiahfortythirtyone · 6th May 2006

28-135mm?

what lens is that?

dEthANGeL · 6th May 2006

Assuming you're referring to canon lenses...

1 is a EFS mount, the other is a EF mount.

EFS being not able to be used on normal EF mount cameras and only on your 350D.

I've been using the 28-135 for quite sometime with my 300D. Not sure about the IQ of the 17-85 but stopped down the 28-135 is quite decent.

Maltese · 6th May 2006

Hi Silverapple,

You need to tell us mainly what is your primary application, budget as well as your future intention before advicing you on your choice of lens. Furthermore, your lens choice is rather interesting, its not a A or B choice, both lens do not have any conflict with your 350D body. You can get both if you want, the first one is a landscape lens, the second is a general purpose lens, they almost do not replace each other because the 28-135 in your 350D will become 45-216.

If you are nature photographer and you mostly take landscape, panaroma photos, you should stick to 17-85. The 28-135 is a awkard lens in your digital body. However, if you intend to upgrade to a 5D or higher body with no field of view crop, then a 28-135IS is a very good travel lens.

I'm a one lens man and often travelled very lightly to many places with one lens only.

My early years are just like every photographer, I bring kilos of gear to wherever I travel, but as age catches up and my physical goes down, I decide to travel light.

My recent 2 trips to the same place gave me an insight of how your gear can affect your works. On my first trip, I didn't bring my telephoto lens and I ended up a lot of nature, portriats. My second trip I included a 300mm and comes back with wildlife, closeups etc.

My point is, whatever lens you own, bring and use, will determine what type of theme, photos and results you wanna make. A human is only so much, you can't possible take everything, use everything with a limited amount of money, time (i.e lighting condition, staying duration), energy as well as creative juice.

You need to know what you want to start shooting first, get the best lens for that, then upgrade along the way. In your case, I wouldn't consider a 28-135 on a 350D, its no where near for serious nature, and no where close to telephoto works. Unless your interest is on general photography, then its quite a good choice to begin with. Later when you upgrade your body, the 28-135 is an excellent lens to have as a walk about lens. 7 out of 10 working photogs will have one as a light weight alternative. That is if your body is a film or a digital body with no view of field crop.

hwchoy · 6th May 2006

I had the EF-S 17-85 and still have the EF 28-135. I got rid of the 17-85 because of the very poor wide-end performance. CA is horrible and significant barrel distortion. The whole point of a lens as wide as 17mm is surely for the wide-angle performance, if it cannot perform adequately at this end then what is the point of having the range. Hence my decision to dump it and stick with the 28-135 and to get a good ultra-wide later. Certainly the cost of the lens must be considered. The 17-85 is about 30-50% higher than the 28-135 so that pretty much decided it for me.

I also notice, after a couple of trips with the 17-85, that most of my shots are 24mm and upwards, and the rest are typically landscapes at the extreme wide end. so getting a 28-135 with an ultra-wide makes sense, albeit with the hassle of changing lenses.

ykia · 6th May 2006

Here are the reviews for the EF 28-135IS....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

...and the EFS 17-85IS....
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Enjoy!

mpenza · 6th May 2006

a lot depends on other lenses in your arsenal too. if u already have a wide angle lens, the 28-135 IS would complement it nicely at a lower cost. If you're looking for a one-lens solution, the 17-85 would be more flexible (if there's not enough zoom, you can crop but if the subject cannot fit into the picture, it's not there).

of course, you could consider other options too if IS is not important. There're a lot other options (18-200, 17-70, etc) now from the 3rd party manufacturers that you could take a look. I'm still using an old Sigma 18-125 DC which is less than half the price of the 17-85.

silverapple · 6th May 2006

Hi Thanks for all the replies.

I take mostly my kids portraits

In the house - zoom at them while they play, or outdoor eg.zoo.

I have an existing 55-200mm and the kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8. But I find myself not using 55-200mm often cos' it's long and slightly heavier - plus i don't use the range above 100mm.

I am unlikely to upgrade to FF as I prefer something light - which is why I bought the 350D. So I really dun mind efs. I prefer something lightweight, with IS. Budget is not a problem but prefer to make a one time investment rather than buying two lens. Prefer to have one walkaround lens.

I wanted to ask if any of you have the same picture taken by these two lens at say about 45mm. I take mostly around 40-100?mm. Prefer to get one good lens which I can bring around anywhere.

Say if I can only buy one ... and the above are my needs ... which one ?

Inglorion · 7th May 2006

I have the 28-135 IS with me and i can say it's a little better than the 24-85 you had before. The 17-85 is a remake of the 28-135 for the 1.6 crop factor users or rather the EF-S mount. The 17-85 IS has horrid CA as well as linear distortion, especially on the wide side, maybe a little vignetting issue. The benifit of the 17-85 is that it will totally replace your kit lens for wide angles usage. Thou I would prefer the 28-135, the choice should on the focal length you need rather than the quality. By the way, I'm not promoting the 28-135 because I'm selling one.

shawnlim · 8th May 2006

Why not stick with your kit lense and buy a better prime lense like 85 f1.8 for your kids portraits

rokieto · 9th May 2006

28mm is not wide enough for standard zoom on 1.6x crop DSLR body. I tried using my old 28-105, ended up changing w the kit lense (17-55mm) frequently.(e.g. an opportunity inside mrt train or market /mall, etc.)

unless your shooting is mostly at long-end & seldom the wide end.
So I only bring the kit lense (17-55mm) & 70-300mm. leaving my 28-105 at home.

If I replace my kit lense, I would still start from 17mm upwards. e.g. 17-40L (for quality) or 17-85 (for overall zoom length, IS & USM) or 17-55 f2.8 / 17-70 f2.8-f4 for large aperture.

Or if u want lightweight & mobility, mostly outdoors (e.g.trekking), go for the super-zooms one lense solution, e.g. 18-200, 18-125, etc.

studiolabmaster · 9th May 2006

if is is not that important.try the sigma 17-70. wide open at f2.8 not bad though.........and much better than 17-85 at wide 17mm.
but of course to have less distortion try to avoid 17mm unless no choice.i would try to use 20mm and above,but u know la....when we get lazy,we tend to open to the widest

try the sigma 10-20 for landscape scenerey shots......its good and much better than the expensive efs 10-22. canon nowsaday tend to have moreexpensive len with a poor qc....

Danntbt · 15th May 2006

Originally Posted by studiolabmaster

if is is not that important.try the sigma 17-70. wide open at f2.8 not bad though.........and much better than 17-85 at wide 17mm.
but of course to have less distortion try to avoid 17mm unless no choice.i would try to use 20mm and above,but u know la....when we get lazy,we tend to open to the widest
try the sigma 10-20 for landscape scenerey shots......its good and much better than the expensive efs 10-22. canon nowsaday tend to have moreexpensive len with a poor qc....

I am not sure isf the Sigma wide is much better than the Canon 20-22...have you done a review or just your perception...test done by others do not seem to point to this conclusion.

honda · 15th May 2006

i support going for 17-85is. look at the mtf chart at canon website. it looks very good. i had a canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 which is very good but not wide enough n i ditch it when i got sigma 18-50/2.8.
http://lewwl.zoto.com//galleries/singaporephoto

Russ · 15th May 2006

17-85 - performance at wide end not great
28-135 - not wide enough at 28

My solution was to go for 18-55 plus 24-85 (using the kit for wide only)

Then I wanted to get the 17-85 but decided to for a 17-40L and a 85 1.8. Good combo but I wanted a super wide so now I also have a 10-22.

6th May 2006	#1
silverapple Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 79	17-85mm or 28-135mm I wonder if anyone has these two lens and able to post some pictures for comparison ? I was at the shop testing out the 17-85mm - very good pictures. I wonder if the 28-135mm has the same quality ? Decide to get one of them to go with my new 350D ... but dunno which one

6th May 2006	#2
Isaiahfortythirtyone Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Clementi Posts: 2,470	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm 28-135mm? what lens is that?

6th May 2006	#3
dEthANGeL Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Siglap Posts: 1,645	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm Assuming you're referring to canon lenses... 1 is a EFS mount, the other is a EF mount. EFS being not able to be used on normal EF mount cameras and only on your 350D. I've been using the 28-135 for quite sometime with my 300D. Not sure about the IQ of the 17-85 but stopped down the 28-135 is quite decent.

6th May 2006	#4
Maltese Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Singapore Posts: 239	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm Hi Silverapple, You need to tell us mainly what is your primary application, budget as well as your future intention before advicing you on your choice of lens. Furthermore, your lens choice is rather interesting, its not a A or B choice, both lens do not have any conflict with your 350D body. You can get both if you want, the first one is a landscape lens, the second is a general purpose lens, they almost do not replace each other because the 28-135 in your 350D will become 45-216. If you are nature photographer and you mostly take landscape, panaroma photos, you should stick to 17-85. The 28-135 is a awkard lens in your digital body. However, if you intend to upgrade to a 5D or higher body with no field of view crop, then a 28-135IS is a very good travel lens. I'm a one lens man and often travelled very lightly to many places with one lens only. My early years are just like every photographer, I bring kilos of gear to wherever I travel, but as age catches up and my physical goes down, I decide to travel light. My recent 2 trips to the same place gave me an insight of how your gear can affect your works. On my first trip, I didn't bring my telephoto lens and I ended up a lot of nature, portriats. My second trip I included a 300mm and comes back with wildlife, closeups etc. My point is, whatever lens you own, bring and use, will determine what type of theme, photos and results you wanna make. A human is only so much, you can't possible take everything, use everything with a limited amount of money, time (i.e lighting condition, staying duration), energy as well as creative juice. You need to know what you want to start shooting first, get the best lens for that, then upgrade along the way. In your case, I wouldn't consider a 28-135 on a 350D, its no where near for serious nature, and no where close to telephoto works. Unless your interest is on general photography, then its quite a good choice to begin with. Later when you upgrade your body, the 28-135 is an excellent lens to have as a walk about lens. 7 out of 10 working photogs will have one as a light weight alternative. That is if your body is a film or a digital body with no view of field crop.

6th May 2006	#5
hwchoy Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Tampines, Singapore. Posts: 1,938	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm I had the EF-S 17-85 and still have the EF 28-135. I got rid of the 17-85 because of the very poor wide-end performance. CA is horrible and significant barrel distortion. The whole point of a lens as wide as 17mm is surely for the wide-angle performance, if it cannot perform adequately at this end then what is the point of having the range. Hence my decision to dump it and stick with the 28-135 and to get a good ultra-wide later. Certainly the cost of the lens must be considered. The 17-85 is about 30-50% higher than the 28-135 so that pretty much decided it for me. I also notice, after a couple of trips with the 17-85, that most of my shots are 24mm and upwards, and the rest are typically landscapes at the extreme wide end. so getting a 28-135 with an ultra-wide makes sense, albeit with the hassle of changing lenses. Last edited by hwchoy; 6th May 2006 at 02:11 PM.

6th May 2006	#6
ykia Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: PunggolJetty.Com Posts: 892	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm Here are the reviews for the EF 28-135IS.... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx ...and the EFS 17-85IS.... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx Enjoy! __________________ Kopi Session (when time permits) at 100AW, Blk 639, Punggol Drive

6th May 2006	#7
mpenza Moderator Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: New York City Posts: 13,397	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm a lot depends on other lenses in your arsenal too. if u already have a wide angle lens, the 28-135 IS would complement it nicely at a lower cost. If you're looking for a one-lens solution, the 17-85 would be more flexible (if there's not enough zoom, you can crop but if the subject cannot fit into the picture, it's not there). of course, you could consider other options too if IS is not important. There're a lot other options (18-200, 17-70, etc) now from the 3rd party manufacturers that you could take a look. I'm still using an old Sigma 18-125 DC which is less than half the price of the 17-85. Last edited by mpenza; 6th May 2006 at 03:17 PM.

6th May 2006	#8
silverapple Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 79	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm Hi Thanks for all the replies. I take mostly my kids portraits In the house - zoom at them while they play, or outdoor eg.zoo. I have an existing 55-200mm and the kit lens, and a 50mm f/1.8. But I find myself not using 55-200mm often cos' it's long and slightly heavier - plus i don't use the range above 100mm. I am unlikely to upgrade to FF as I prefer something light - which is why I bought the 350D. So I really dun mind efs. I prefer something lightweight, with IS. Budget is not a problem but prefer to make a one time investment rather than buying two lens. Prefer to have one walkaround lens. I wanted to ask if any of you have the same picture taken by these two lens at say about 45mm. I take mostly around 40-100?mm. Prefer to get one good lens which I can bring around anywhere. Say if I can only buy one ... and the above are my needs ... which one ?

7th May 2006	#9
Inglorion Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 313	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm I have the 28-135 IS with me and i can say it's a little better than the 24-85 you had before. The 17-85 is a remake of the 28-135 for the 1.6 crop factor users or rather the EF-S mount. The 17-85 IS has horrid CA as well as linear distortion, especially on the wide side, maybe a little vignetting issue. The benifit of the 17-85 is that it will totally replace your kit lens for wide angles usage. Thou I would prefer the 28-135, the choice should on the focal length you need rather than the quality. By the way, I'm not promoting the 28-135 because I'm selling one. Last edited by Inglorion; 7th May 2006 at 01:19 AM.

8th May 2006	#10
shawnlim Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Jurong West Posts: 256	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm Why not stick with your kit lense and buy a better prime lense like 85 f1.8 for your kids portraits

9th May 2006	#11
rokieto Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Planet Jupiter Posts: 564	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm 28mm is not wide enough for standard zoom on 1.6x crop DSLR body. I tried using my old 28-105, ended up changing w the kit lense (17-55mm) frequently.(e.g. an opportunity inside mrt train or market /mall, etc.) unless your shooting is mostly at long-end & seldom the wide end. So I only bring the kit lense (17-55mm) & 70-300mm. leaving my 28-105 at home. If I replace my kit lense, I would still start from 17mm upwards. e.g. 17-40L (for quality) or 17-85 (for overall zoom length, IS & USM) or 17-55 f2.8 / 17-70 f2.8-f4 for large aperture. Or if u want lightweight & mobility, mostly outdoors (e.g.trekking), go for the super-zooms one lense solution, e.g. 18-200, 18-125, etc.

9th May 2006	#12
studiolabmaster Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Tampines SG Posts: 1,441	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm if is is not that important.try the sigma 17-70. wide open at f2.8 not bad though.........and much better than 17-85 at wide 17mm. but of course to have less distortion try to avoid 17mm unless no choice.i would try to use 20mm and above,but u know la....when we get lazy,we tend to open to the widest try the sigma 10-20 for landscape scenerey shots......its good and much better than the expensive efs 10-22. canon nowsaday tend to have moreexpensive len with a poor qc....

15th May 2006	#14
honda Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 489	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm i support going for 17-85is. look at the mtf chart at canon website. it looks very good. i had a canon 28-105/3.5-4.5 which is very good but not wide enough n i ditch it when i got sigma 18-50/2.8. http://lewwl.zoto.com//galleries/singaporephoto

15th May 2006	#15
Russ Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 1,613	Re: 17-85mm or 28-135mm 17-85 - performance at wide end not great 28-135 - not wide enough at 28 My solution was to go for 18-55 plus 24-85 (using the kit for wide only) Then I wanted to get the 17-85 but decided to for a 17-40L and a 85 1.8. Good combo but I wanted a super wide so now I also have a 10-22.