Lens Opinions

My main camera lens at the moment is the EF 28-135mm IS USM, which although excellent for a non-L lens is limited as on a non-fullframe DSLR the widest it goes is 45mm. Now if I had a decent wide angle lens such as the 10-22mm this wouldn't be a problem, but the only lens I own going wider than 28mm is the kit 17-55, which isn't great.

Thus I've been thinking about selling the 28-135 and buying the 17-85mm IS USM, which is clearly targetted as being the 28-135 for cropped digital SLRs. I'll loose the extra zoom but in return gain the wide angle in a single lens. However, the optical quality of the 28-135 is excellent for a non-L lens, and I'm worried that the 17-85 isn't up to the same quality. Are there any really picky camera geeks out there who have used both the 28-135 and 17-85 and can help me decide?

NP: Prose Combat, MC Solaar

14:17 Friday, 21 Jul 2006 [#] [photography] (10 comments)

Posted by george at Fri Jul 21 14:42:28 2006:
Get a 16-35 f/2.8L USM.  It'll hurt the wallet but you won't regret it.  I recommend staying away from EF-S as you can't mount these to older or newer Canon film cameras, or full frame digital.
Posted by Ross at Fri Jul 21 14:49:31 2006:
The 16-35 is £950.  That's more than a little outside of my price range...
Posted by Ross at Fri Jul 21 14:53:26 2006:
George: your photos are very good though, an excellent advert for the 16-35. :)
Posted by Bo at Fri Jul 21 14:56:43 2006:
I have both the 10-22 and the 28-135, and other than being irritated at having to tote lenses, am very happy.

A friend just got the EF-S 17-85 IS, and while I can't yet accurately comment on the image quality (other than it has similar barrel distortion to the 18-55 kit lens; the 10-22 is dreamily flat), the build quality is a little better than the cheap-ish feel of the 28-135.  I would have easily bought it instead of the 28-135 if it had been available at the time.

Another lens you should consider, if image quality is of the utmost priority, is the EF 17-40 4L lens.  It has been a popular lens for 10D owners, and is usually under $700 USD.  And it's L glass.
Posted by Ross at Fri Jul 21 15:04:49 2006:
I've had a go with the 17-40, it is lovely.  I'm trying to start out with a single decent general purpose lens, and then work out from there.  If I get the 17-85 my next purchase would probably be the 60mm macro.

I'm not too worried about EF-S as I don't see myself being able to afford a 5D any day soon, and if I can I'll be able to afford new glass too. :)
Posted by Koen at Fri Jul 21 15:05:12 2006:
I bought the tokina 12-24/F4 last week, and it's a very great lens, a lot sharper than the 18-55 kitlens. Check http://pbase.com/cameras/tokina/at_x_124_af_pro_dx for sample pictures. It give me slightly less than a 90 degree FOV on my 20D.
Posted by francesco at Fri Jul 21 15:33:56 2006:
i own a sigma 17-70 and it's a great (for the money) walkaround lens. it's probably bulkier than the 17-85, you miss 15mm and the IS but you can get it for half the price of the canon's, it's brighter at the wider side (f/2.8 up to ~20mm) and it's not -S (as i own a 10D). sharpness and contrast are good enough and distortion is fair and easily fixable in software.
Posted by Damon at Fri Jul 21 18:32:32 2006:
Go with the 10-22.  I have one and on a crop camera it is stellar.  I carry three lens including this one for the full range (plus a 50mm 1.2f prime lens for indoors/portrait)
Posted by Hamish at Sun Jul 23 02:43:37 2006:
I have the 17-85. It's been my only lens for the first six months with the 350D. It's very convenient and the IS helps for longer exposures (usually low-light).

I don't think it's perfect but it's a very convenient range. I don't have anything to compare it with though.
Posted by Pav Lucistnik at Mon Jul 24 17:43:17 2006:
I'd say EF-S 17-85 is optically on par with your EF 28-135, and neither of these two lenses are anywhere stellar.

I do own EF-S 17-85 and as long as I'm not terribly happy about the image quality, there just isn't any other option in the Canon line-up. The 17mm is really essential to have, I could not give it up.

You could consider EF 24-105/4L which is affordable and superior optically, or EF 17-40/4L if you don't need the longer part of the "usual" zoom range.

Name:


E-mail:


URL:


Add 8 and 9 (required):


Comment: