Canon 17-85 or Canon 18-135 IS lens
- Thread starter aloks
- Start date
17-85 definitely.
If you got the cash, go 15-85 or 18-200, depending if you need the Image quality or the extra range.
The 18-135 is not really good at all. You get better IQ, build quality, full time manual focus, and lightning quite autofocus with the 17-85 for cheaper.
If you got the cash, go 15-85 or 18-200, depending if you need the Image quality or the extra range.
The 18-135 is not really good at all. You get better IQ, build quality, full time manual focus, and lightning quite autofocus with the 17-85 for cheaper.
Hi
Thanks for your reply, i like 15-85, but it is very very costly, 18- 200 is also good slightly costlier than 17-85, but there is no FTM in 18-200, is this combination good for me --
1. 17-85 IS and add 55-250 IS or 100-300 Lens ( not L) it has FTM too
Regards
alok
Thanks for your reply, i like 15-85, but it is very very costly, 18- 200 is also good slightly costlier than 17-85, but there is no FTM in 18-200, is this combination good for me --
1. 17-85 IS and add 55-250 IS or 100-300 Lens ( not L) it has FTM too
Regards
alok
avoid 17-85 IS, its one of the worst performing canon lens, mediocre built & IQ. :thumbsd:
better compliment your kitlens with 55-250 IS. :thumbsup:
better compliment your kitlens with 55-250 IS. :thumbsup:
Last edited:
17-85 and 15-85 only cost 200 dollars difference
save abit more for it? get better IQ and slightly larger aperture
havnt tried 18-135 IS so i cant comment much. but its scores higher than 17-85 IS from reviews.
btw, if only my wife is comfortable with 18-135's weight on 550D, ill definitely buy it.
Save a little longer for the 15-85. It will be worth it: Close focus distance + FTM for your macro. Good focal length for portraits. Good wide angle for monuments. Relatively small and lightweight. IS + USM. Excellent image quality.
The other options you listed are cheaper and also inferior options. Why not buy once and call it a day rather than playing the upgrade game?
The other options you listed are cheaper and also inferior options. Why not buy once and call it a day rather than playing the upgrade game?
If you don't want the 17-85 you're really better off saving for the 15-85 instead of the 18-135. The 18-135 wide open aperture isn't sharp and with quite some distortion at the wide end. At least the 17-85 is sharp in the center. It also doesn't have USM or full time manual as you said you want.
The digital picture review notes that the 18-135 is only sharp at f8. Now that will really limit your depth of field options for closer portraits, unless you stand really far away.
Both of these lenses aren't as good as the 15-85. But if you really really must choose between them, I would still choose the 17-85mm, no offense to engrmariano. Not because the 17-85 is fantastically good(i agree its mediocre) but it's still better than the 18-135.
Moral of the story, save up for a 15-85
(BTW have you considered the tamron 17-50 f2.8?)
The digital picture review notes that the 18-135 is only sharp at f8. Now that will really limit your depth of field options for closer portraits, unless you stand really far away.
Both of these lenses aren't as good as the 15-85. But if you really really must choose between them, I would still choose the 17-85mm, no offense to engrmariano. Not because the 17-85 is fantastically good(i agree its mediocre) but it's still better than the 18-135.
Moral of the story, save up for a 15-85
(BTW have you considered the tamron 17-50 f2.8?)
Neither the 17-85mm nor the 18-135mm is really an "upgrade" from your 18-55mm, as long as you have the IS version of that lens. The only "upgrade" is the slightly longer reach, but as far as the IQ goes your 18-55mm is at least as good as those two. if longer reach is what you want you'll be much better off my complementing your 18-55mm withg the very good (for the price) and affordable EF-S 55-250mm.
If you want a real upgrade then go for the 15-85mm. It is a real upgrade in IQ from those three above, and the focal lenght is extremly usable. Another option worth considering would be the 17-55mm f2.8. It's maybe even a tad sharper than the 15-85mm and it has f2.8 all through the zoom range.
The 17-55mm used to be my "standard lens" but since I switched to a EOS 7D which I bought as a kit with the 15-85mm the 15-85mm has taken it's place as my "standard lens". It is really tack sharp and it's wide enough so in most cases I don't even bother to bring along my 10-22mm ultra wide-angle.
Take my advice and don't bother to "upgrade" to those mediocre alternatives you're considering. It won't really be an upgrade and you'll spend money on something that won't give you better results. Now if your 18-55mm is the kit lens *without IS* then that's a different story altogether. The IS version of that lens is considerably better optically than the non-IS version. So if you own the non-IS version then almost enything will be an upgrade
If you want a real upgrade then go for the 15-85mm. It is a real upgrade in IQ from those three above, and the focal lenght is extremly usable. Another option worth considering would be the 17-55mm f2.8. It's maybe even a tad sharper than the 15-85mm and it has f2.8 all through the zoom range.
The 17-55mm used to be my "standard lens" but since I switched to a EOS 7D which I bought as a kit with the 15-85mm the 15-85mm has taken it's place as my "standard lens". It is really tack sharp and it's wide enough so in most cases I don't even bother to bring along my 10-22mm ultra wide-angle.
Take my advice and don't bother to "upgrade" to those mediocre alternatives you're considering. It won't really be an upgrade and you'll spend money on something that won't give you better results. Now if your 18-55mm is the kit lens *without IS* then that's a different story altogether. The IS version of that lens is considerably better optically than the non-IS version. So if you own the non-IS version then almost enything will be an upgrade
Neither the 17-85mm nor the 18-135mm is really an "upgrade" from your 18-55mm, as long as you have the IS version of that lens. The only "upgrade" is the slightly longer reach, but as far as the IQ goes your 18-55mm is at least as good as those two. if longer reach is what you want you'll be much better off my complementing your 18-55mm withg the very good (for the price) and affordable EF-S 55-250mm.
If you want a real upgrade then go for the 15-85mm. It is a real upgrade in IQ from those three above, and the focal lenght is extremly usable. Another option worth considering would be the 17-55mm f2.8. It's maybe even a tad sharper than the 15-85mm and it has f2.8 all through the zoom range.
The 17-55mm used to be my "standard lens" but since I switched to a EOS 7D which I bought as a kit with the 15-85mm the 15-85mm has taken it's place as my "standard lens". It is really tack sharp and it's wide enough so in most cases I don't even bother to bring along my 10-22mm ultra wide-angle.
Take my advice and don't bother to "upgrade" to those mediocre alternatives you're considering. It won't really be an upgrade and you'll spend money on something that won't give you better results. Now if your 18-55mm is the kit lens *without IS* then that's a different story altogether. The IS version of that lens is considerably better optically than the non-IS version. So if you own the non-IS version then almost enything will be an upgrade
Hi Johans
Thanks for your reply, further you have mentioned that you were using a 17-55 ( 2.8 ) lens and now you have converted to 15-85 ( 3.5-4.5 ) , donnot you feel that 15-85 is not as fast as 17-55 ? and taking portraits at 55 mm at 2.8 aperture was giving better bokeh in comparison to taking portraits at 85 at 4.5 with your 15-85 ?
I am using a Non IS 18-55 and planning to upgrade, i have listed these lenses-- 18-55 IS, 15-85 IS, 18-200 IS, or at last my option is 18-55 IS with 55-250 IS , 15-85 being very costly, or i have to wait and save for 15-85 IS.
Regards
alok
Between 15-85 and 17-55 it really comes down to your priorities. Features wise both have capable IS, USM with FTM and both are veryvery good in optics, the top of the EF-S line, with 17-55 edging out just a weee bit.
But the 15-85 advantage is range, and the 17-55 is its f2.8. So you’ll have to decide then. What do you need more? I rented both for a day each before I got my answer.
But the 15-85 advantage is range, and the 17-55 is its f2.8. So you’ll have to decide then. What do you need more? I rented both for a day each before I got my answer.
Yes, definitely the 17-55mm is a faster lens, and it's of course a bit better in low-light conditions. But aperture is not everything, I find that the range of the 18-85mm outweighs the disadvantage of having a smaller aperture. IQ wise I'll rate them about equal - they're both as tack sharp as a zoom lens can be, the 17-55mm is maybe slightly sharper. But again, the very usable range outweighs that. But I still have both lenses, and I sometimes use the 17-55mm as well.
When it comes to shooting in low-light conditions I find that f2.8 is usually not fast enough anyhow. So in such conditions I use usually use my Sigma 30mm f1.4 - which I can highly recommend. Or I use flash, which I don't really prefer, but when I do it doesn't really matter if the lens is a f2.8 or 3.5-4.5.
I don't use either of those two lenses for portraits but I guess the 17-55 at f2.8 would be the best option between the two. For portraits I usually use my Sigma 50mm f1.4, which is IMHO the perfect focal length for portraits (half-body or full-body) on a crop camera. It gives you some distance to your subject, but not too much. For face portraits I prefer my Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 - or I sometimes use my Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro - but the latter is maybe too sharp for some subjects...
Back to your current lens, since you have the non-IS version of the 18-55mm any lens will pretty much be an upgrade. I would go for the EF-S 15-85mm or the Canon EF-S 17-55, if cash is a problem you should be able to pick up the 18-55mm *IS* version in the for sale section for a very reasonable price while you save up for one of those two. But don't get the EF-S 7-85, the EF-S 18-135 or the EF-S 18-200, the *IS* kit lens is just as good as any of them and better than some of them (except for range of course).
You could also have a look at the Sigma 18-55mm f2.8, there is a version with no IS (OS) and a newer version with IS (OS) - both are very good lenses. And there is also the Tamron 17-50 f2.0 - it's pretty good as well. Both these are less expensive than the two Canon options.
Hi Johans and Shane
Thank you very much for such a detailed reply and sharing your complete knowledge about lenses with me, seems first i have to buy a 18-55 IS and save for 15-85 IS. It is not wise to invest in 18-200, 17-85 and 18-135 as they are having same optics of 18-55.
Sigma 50-150 (2.8) is also a very good lense for portraits , as mentioned by Mr Chjohans
but i think this is not a cheap lens , must be costlier and taking portraits with macro lens is not adviasable as i think, recently one of my friend purchased a Nikon 60 Micro, i took some portraits with this lens but we had to unsharpen all pictures and all blemishes and spots on face were super sharp and clearly visible. there is no softness in portraits taken with a macro lens, as i found.
Regards
alok
Thank you very much for such a detailed reply and sharing your complete knowledge about lenses with me, seems first i have to buy a 18-55 IS and save for 15-85 IS. It is not wise to invest in 18-200, 17-85 and 18-135 as they are having same optics of 18-55.
Sigma 50-150 (2.8) is also a very good lense for portraits , as mentioned by Mr Chjohans
but i think this is not a cheap lens , must be costlier and taking portraits with macro lens is not adviasable as i think, recently one of my friend purchased a Nikon 60 Micro, i took some portraits with this lens but we had to unsharpen all pictures and all blemishes and spots on face were super sharp and clearly visible. there is no softness in portraits taken with a macro lens, as i found.
Regards
alok
how good is the 18-135 IS for travel photos where I might not have the time to change lens? (I am okay to shoot at 7-10MP and use the +sharpness in-camera settings or if in bright daylight, will probably stop down the aperture to around f/5.6 or f/7). However, when night time comes, or if I'm going indoors for extended time, there should be enough time for me to switch the 18-135 for another lens, am thinking of getting a prime lens or the 17-55 f/2.8.