Need advise. Which lens?

[sanfong]

Hi I'm deciding over this 2 lens.

1. Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM
2. Canon EF 17-85mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM

I have 2 questions:

A. How come Canon website indicate the Lens '1.' max f is 3.5-5.6 and Lens '2.' is f22?

B. What does groups/elemets means? Lens '1.' is 12-16 and Lens '2.' is 12-17.

Both are acceptable to me and both have IS, which is better? Which alternative you would suggest for third party lens?

Please advise me, Thanks.

[Gunbucker]

If you're using a 1.6x cropped sensor body (such as the 400D), the second lens (the EF-S 17-85mm) would be a more useful focal length.

Don't worry about the smallest possible aperture (f/22), unless you never shoot without a tripod and your subjects don't move.

[sanfong]

So what is the smallest opening for Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ?

[calebk]

Originally Posted by sanfong So what is the smallest opening for Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ?

For digital, you shouldn't be shooting smaller than f/16 as diffraction would begin to degrade the quality of the picture. Most lenses will definitely stop down to smaller than f/16 so it's no biggie. Don't worry about it.

[xunjas]

i would opt for 17-85mm, since the focal length range is more usable for me. I can do landscape and portraits.

[unseenshadows]

I have a copy of this lens. I think it goes from f/29 at 28mm to f/36 at 135mm.

Like what other's have said, it's no biggie.

This lens is a cheaper alternative compared to the EF-S 17-85mm when bought second hand. I saved quite a bit of money buying 2nd hand also.

To me, this lens is a more useful focal length, because it has a longer focal length range and also because I would rather have another lens dedicated for landscape/wide-angle. I sometimes also shoot at 28mm exclusively, as a 'prime'.

Originally Posted by sanfong So what is the smallest opening for Canon EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS USM ?

[jhs2669]

Originally Posted by Gunbucker If you're using a 1.6x cropped sensor body (such as the 400D), the second lens (the EF-S 17-85mm) would be a more useful focal length. Don't worry about the smallest possible aperture (f/22), unless you never shoot without a tripod and your subjects don't move.

So u mean the lens(2) not suitable for nlow light shooting loh ?
the s'pore Canon 40D come with 2 std kit.
1- 17-55
2-17-85

Coz, i still think which lens to take ?
Use to take under low light condition, wedding, shopping, & sometime for travel.

[RayDream]

The one that comes with kit is 18-55, not 17-55. The 17-55 is the expensive ones that has a F2.8. While 18-55 has up to F3.5 only.

If you have the budget.. go for 17-55. Else stick to 17-85 is better.

18-55 is too short for me, I will opt for 17-85 for general purpose.

[unseenshadows]

Or you could just get a 40D body and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, since you take in low light.

[dw2chan]

i'll definitely recommend the 17-85 over the 28-135.
i find the 17-85 is a perfect walk around lens, has wide to a short telephoto. where as the 28-135 doesnt really have a wide but has a longer telephoto.

if you want to shoot in low light...these lenses arent for you (unless you're talking about night scenery scenes where you use a tripod) if you want to stop action, you'll need faster glass. i'll recommend a 50 f1.8 for something very cheap and fast

and just stay away from the 18-55 (non IS version...not too sure how the new one performs). there's really no point getting that....the IQ is quite bad

[iRaphael]

i would prefer the 28-135.

i prefer the built of the 28-135. you got more reach, but you lose the wide side.

and the 28-135 is EF mount, you can upgrade to full frame or 1.3x in the future.

and i dont like the distortion at 17mm on the 17-85.

reviews did say that the 17-24 is barely useable. havent really tested myself yet.

[Fragnatic]

Originally Posted by iRaphael i would prefer the 28-135. i prefer the built of the 28-135. you got more reach, but you lose the wide side. and the 28-135 is EF mount, you can upgrade to full frame or 1.3x in the future. and i dont like the distortion at 17mm on the 17-85. reviews did say that the 17-24 is barely useable. havent really tested myself yet.

yep, distortion is quite bad.
at 17mm, centre has visible barrel distortion then turning to pincushion at the sides.
hard to correct in most software.

but its still a rather gd lens, covering wide to mid-tele. i just avoid taking photos that show obvious straight lines.

[jhs2669]

Originally Posted by dw2chan i'll definitely recommend the 17-85 over the 28-135. i find the 17-85 is a perfect walk around lens, has wide to a short telephoto. where as the 28-135 doesnt really have a wide but has a longer telephoto. if you want to shoot in low light...these lenses arent for you (unless you're talking about night scenery scenes where you use a tripod) if you want to stop action, you'll need faster glass. i'll recommend a 50 f1.8 for something very cheap and fast and just stay away from the 18-55 (non IS version...not too sure how the new one performs). there's really no point getting that....the IQ is quite bad

FASTER GLASS ?
50 f1.8, any brand or shop commend ? how much will it cost ?
Yes, previously i also thought to take 17-85 kit package.

[jhs2669]

Originally Posted by unseenshadows Or you could just get a 40D body and EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, or the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, since you take in low light.

Yes, there's one of my consideration.
But Canon /2.8 IS USM = $$$$,Tamaron 17-50 f/2.8 = $$$ ? Wht is the mkt price ?
Wht i knw Tamaron is cheaper, is that suit for 40D ?
Any sample with both Lens from 40D body ?

Thousand Thanks

[megaweb]

Originally Posted by sanfong Both are acceptable to me and both have IS, which is better? Which alternative you would suggest for third party lens? Please advise me, Thanks.

Better in quality or range ?

My advice is if you are using 1.6x DSLR like 10D, 20D, 30D or 40D, get Canon EF 17-85mm f4.0-5.6 IS USM. Why ? Becoz'. tt will give you general range focal length of 28mm to 135mm ( after multiple by 1.6x ) which is useful for general photography like street, candid, group shots photography etc. If you have $ or budget, recommend to get original brand, Canon as better AF.

[calebk]

Originally Posted by jhs2669 So u mean the lens(2) not suitable for nlow light shooting loh ? the s'pore Canon 40D come with 2 std kit. 1- 17-55 2-17-85 Coz, i still think which lens to take ? Use to take under low light condition, wedding, shopping, & sometime for travel.

I don't see your logic. The two lenses are not suitable for low light shooting because of the widest aperture opening, not the smallest, so why did you draw your conclusion from the smallest aperture opening of both lenses?

40D comes with two choice of kit lenses

i) 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (not 17-55 - that is an f/2.8 lens)
ii) 17-85 f/4-5.6 iS USM

Of both, the 17-85 is better, but of course, with the emergence of the new 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, I do believe the 18-55 IS is a better lens than both the current kit lens offerings, and you should go for this lens if you can.

And honestly, don't think of weddings just yet. Weddings are not every photographer's cup of tea, and you don't sound like you have a solid enough grasp on your basic knowledge to be able to comfortably shoot weddings. Sorry if I sound harsh, but that's the way it is in the wedding industry - you don't want to screw up somebody's special day by missing shots.

[xtremequantumx]

For me personally, I wouldn't get the 17-85.
If i require a lens for my telephoto needs (which may be short or long), I would get the EF-S 55-250mm.
Hence my two lenses would be the 18-55(17-55 f/2.8 IS USM if have the budget) and 55-250(to cover any telephoto needs).
My 2 cents.

[jhs2669]

Originally Posted by calebk I don't see your logic. The two lenses are not suitable for low light shooting because of the widest aperture opening, not the smallest, so why did you draw your conclusion from the smallest aperture opening of both lenses? 40D comes with two choice of kit lenses i) 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (not 17-55 - that is an f/2.8 lens) ii) 17-85 f/4-5.6 iS USM Of both, the 17-85 is better, but of course, with the emergence of the new 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 IS, I do believe the 18-55 IS is a better lens than both the current kit lens offerings, and you should go for this lens if you can. And honestly, don't think of weddings just yet. Weddings are not every photographer's cup of tea, and you don't sound like you have a solid enough grasp on your basic knowledge to be able to comfortably shoot weddings. Sorry if I sound harsh, but that's the way it is in the wedding industry - you don't want to screw up somebody's special day by missing shots.

Yes and thanks for the advice.
Actually i jz wish know more abt it, if i know or expert. i woun't be here but jz daubt btw 2 Kit. I prefer Kit II but as u said so is not suitable for low light so i need to be consider as F2.8 or F1.4+/- ?
For the wedding shooting, is jz normal or let say casual shooting. Learning not Earning.
Is true like you said:don't want to screw up somebody's special day by missing shots, so now still collecting bullet :P
Jz wish to chooes the right Lens for the right learning purpose.
PEACE

[unseenshadows]

Originally Posted by jhs2669 Yes, there's one of my consideration. But Canon /2.8 IS USM = $$$$,Tamaron 17-50 f/2.8 = $$$ ? Wht is the mkt price ? Wht i knw Tamaron is cheaper, is that suit for 40D ? Any sample with both Lens from 40D body ? Thousand Thanks

There's a price list, that's a sticky, that's on the Canon forum.

For sample photos, there's google.

Originally Posted by iRaphael i would prefer the 28-135. i prefer the built of the 28-135. you got more reach, but you lose the wide side. and the 28-135 is EF mount, you can upgrade to full frame or 1.3x in the future. and i dont like the distortion at 17mm on the 17-85. reviews did say that the 17-24 is barely useable. havent really tested myself yet.

Yes I completely agree. Though what are you referring to when you say 17-24? Typo error?

[iRaphael]

Quote: Yes I completely agree. Though what are you referring to when you say 17-24? Typo error?

]

as in the range of 17mm to 24mm. from 24mm, its okay, from the reviews.