Canon 17-85IS USM vs Canon 28-135 IS USM F3.5 vs Tamron 17-50F2.8

[bpopd]

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.
__________________


I want advice about the 17-85 lens. And also is it really worth it to get L lenses over these consumer grade lenses?

If I spend say $450 for a used version of this lens, will it regret it down the road?

Is there that big of a difference between this lens and say an L lens?

Cause the only lens I see myself buying from the L line up is the 28-70 F2.8. All the others are not necessary to me.

I only need 17-85 range.

[iridescent]

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.

No question, 28-135IS. Image quality is amazingly amazingly good... a lot better than even 17-85. The sheer quality alone, over the 17-85 is significant... 17-85 is nothing spectacular at all. 28-135 has almost L qualities, though both my 24-105 and 24-70 outdo it (but also outdo the price). Buy from America, it's cheaper.

[AudiDude]

Which one should I pick?

Theres a 28-105 F? for sale in the forums, and the other two are also available on the forums.

I want the one thats the best out of the 3. Though the 28-105USM is half the price of the other two.

Depends on your shooting habits. I wouldn't give up the IS on a cheap slow lens, it would be it's only saving grace. If you think you're going to handhold the 28-105 at full zoom (don't forget to multiply by 1.6) without the IS, good luck. If you think you can live without the wide end of the 17-85, then get the 28-135 IS. I personally shoot a lot @17 mm because I like my shots to convey the feeling of the surroundings, so I remember being there.

The most versatile would be the 17-85 IS especially if you want to shoot indoors. The 28-135 IS has reach, but good luck trying to get a decent portrait "party" shot, unless you want to go into the next room to get far enough away from the subject to get all of them in the frame.

[bpopd]

Depends on your shooting habits. I wouldn't give up the IS on a cheap slow lens, it would be it's onlly saving grace. If you think you're going to handhold the 28-105 at full zoom (don't forget to multiply by 1.6) without the IS, good luck. If you think you can live without the wide end of the 17-85, then get the 28-135 IS. I personally shoot a lot @17 mm because I like my shots to convey the feeling of the surroundings, so I remember being there.

The most versatile would be the 17-85 IS especially if you want to shoot indoors. The 28-135 IS has reach, but good luck trying to get a decent portrait "party" shot, unless you want to go into the next room to get far enough away from the subject to get all of them in the frame.

My thoughts exactly. I need the wide end as much as possible. Is the 17-85 that soft? I got use to using the 50mm F1.8, and got a taste of its 2000% magnification sharpness... Disgusting..simply DISGUSTINGLY GOOD.

But yeah, I dont think I'll be spending any more than $500.

I had my mind on the 17-50 Tamron F2.8 but its range isnt really far enough, and it doesnt have IS or USM. Plus I heard back in the day Tamron and Sigma, and all those companies have pretty shoddy QC.

Are there any substitutes for the 17-85IS?

[iridescent]

17-55 f/2.8 IS

[AudiDude]

My thoughts exactly. I need the wide end as much as possible. Is the 17-85 that soft? I got use to using the 50mm F1.8, and got a taste of its 2000% magnification sharpness... Disgusting..simply DISGUSTINGLY GOOD.

But yeah, I dont think I'll be spending any more than $500.

I had my mind on the 17-50 Tamron F2.8 but its range isnt really far enough, and it doesnt have IS or USM. Plus I heard back in the day Tamron and Sigma, and all those companies have pretty shoddy QC.

Are there any substitutes for the 17-85IS?

The 17-50 Tamron is supposed to be an awesome choice, and I think it would take the clearer shot, no doubt. The 17-85 has barrel distortion at 17mm, which you can correct in Photoshop. The 17-50 can also freeze action, while the 17-85 IS cannot. The IS on the 17-85 is incredible at helping the shaky hands problem though.

I have a 17-85 IS and was looking for another lens and bought a 24-70 2.8 because I already have a 10-20mm Sigma and when I tried the 17-55mm, it didn't seem to have the colour or bokeh and it was an EFS lens. If I decide to go full frame, I don't want to have a lot of money tied up in EFS lenses that don't fit, however I will never give up my 20D. This is also why I was iffy on the 17-50 Tamron BTW.

[bpopd]

No question, 28-135IS. Image quality is amazingly amazingly good... a lot better than even 17-85. The sheer quality alone, over the 17-85 is significant... 17-85 is nothing spectacular at all. 28-135 has almost L qualities, though both my 24-105 and 24-70 outdo it (but also outdo the price). Buy from America, it's cheaper.

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good. But I take it you have a lens that has wideangle, or you are using a full frame cam?

[magical]

tamron 28-75 or 17-50 are awesome lenses for the price, and personally I wouldn't get anything non-L except the primes and maybe the 17-55 f2.8...

even tho your lens has is, there still is no replacement for a low f rating ...

[KorruptioN]

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good.

Yeah... from seeing some results, it is only a *good* general-purpose full-frame lens. I would go with the Tamron 17-50mm. If you have any qualms about 3rd-party build quality, buy locally.

[klam]

The 17-85mm has the better focal length range if you are shooting with a cropped sensor body (i.e. Rebel/20D/30D). I believe that the 17-85mm IS and 28-135mm IS are about equivalent in terms of image quality. Go with the one that has better focal lengths. With that being said, while none of these lenses are best in class, they are excellent starter lenses. The only other suggestion would be to go with the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 which is reported to be really nice and is about on par with the two above lenses in cost.

[hytong]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...00dlenses.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...le-lenses.html

[bpopd]

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...00dlenses.html
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...le-lenses.html

Thanks for the links, they were quite helpful.

I am new to photography, and IS is a great feature. I dont know what to pick.

The sharper Tamron 17-50 with the motion stopping fixed F2.8 or the Canon 17-85 with superior telephoto, and the 3 stop savings IS.

Both have their own merits...decisions decisions.

Is it more important for you to be able to stop motion, or for you to have a longer reach? I think any and all telephoto lengths require IS if hand held.

However, I like taking photos of people, and IS wont help me if I have a crowd of moving people right?

[iridescent]

You make the 28-135IS sound really really good. But I take it you have a lens that has wideangle, or you are using a full frame cam?

I used to have it a long time ago. Many people have this lens and are quite happy with it.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/cus...ustomerReviews
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_28135_35

This is pretty much the closest to 24-70 / 24-105 you will get without breaking the bank. Better than 17-85, easily.

Yes obviously you lose the wide, but you can use your standard kit lens or get an ultrawide. I have a Sigma 12-24mm that works on fullframe as well, which I use... and I also use a Canon 16-35mm.

You've obviously figured out that there are many compromises you have to make when you have a small budget... you have to sacrifice somewhere. With this, you sacrifice wide angle (just pop on your other lens when you need). 28-135 is what I recommend to people who have a budget but still want high quality Canon with USM and IS.

[iridescent]

Thanks for the links, they were quite helpful.

I am new to photography, and IS is a great feature. I dont know what to pick.

The sharper Tamron 17-50 with the motion stopping fixed F2.8 or the Canon 17-85 with superior telephoto, and the 3 stop savings IS.

Both have their own merits...decisions decisions.

Is it more important for you to be able to stop motion, or for you to have a longer reach? I think any and all telephoto lengths require IS if hand held.

However, I like taking photos of people, and IS wont help me if I have a crowd of moving people right?

Actually, slow shutter speeds with moving people can give quite a cool effect... put your camera on a tripod and take such a picture. But in any case, even 2.8 aperture won't help you that much. IS is such a useful feature... I can get crisp photos at 1/8 with both 24-105 and 70-200!

[bpopd]

Actually, slow shutter speeds with moving people can give quite a cool effect... put your camera on a tripod and take such a picture. But in any case, even 2.8 aperture won't help you that much. IS is such a useful feature... I can get crisp photos at 1/8 with both 24-105 and 70-200!

You've sold me on the 28-135IS, if the lens quality is that good, almost reaching L quality...drools. But might I ask have you had a 17-85IS?
Cause to me the thought of changing lenses is generally a bad thing when it comes to traveling and walking.

Anyone know where I can rent a 28-135IS and a 17-85IS so i can compare them myself?