17-85mm EF-S vs 28-135mm EF, both IS

[cdifoto]

I'm purchasing the 75-300mm EF IS but I'll need something for 75mm and below. I have the 50mm prime but I'm not looking for any more primes at the moment. I am, however, torn between the 17-85mm EF-S and the 28-135mm EF IS.

I like the wider angle of focus on the EF-S...but it's the EF-S that scares me. I do have the XT so the compatibility isn't an issue. The reason I'm not certain which to purchase is that I may upgrade sometime in the future to perhaps the Mark IIs...and it's not a compatible lens. However if the quality is pristine for the price, I could use it *for now* since upgrading cameras is a long ways off, or at least until using the camera & lenses would pay for themselves via local PJ or print ad work.

If anyone has any samples, comparison shots, or comments derived from personal experience I would truly appreciate it.

[24Peter]

I haven't shot with the 17-85 but recently purchased (and will be returning) the 28-135 IS. I had high hopes for this lens but it hasn't lived up to [my expectations] [the hype]. I was looking for something to use primarily for portraits/headshots. I love my Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 but recently shot some lowlight stuff which made me think I needed the IS; hence the 28-135 IS.

Here are some samples of the 28-135: (these are the best)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/tjpaolino/large/IMG_9823.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/tjpaolino/large/IMG_9829.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/tjpaolino/large/IMG_9788c.JPG

The rest of the shots in this gallery were taken with either the Canon 28-105, Canon 50 1.8 II or the Canon 75-300 IS USM - http://imageevent.com/24peter/tjpaolino

The 28-135 gets very slow very quickly. Unlike my 28-105 which maxes out at 4.5 only around 95mm, by 90 or so the 28-135 is already at 5.6. And it's not very sharp wide open at any apeture/focal length. (It's also much bigger and heavier than the 28-105.) I did order a Sigma 24-70 2.8 DG Ex macro this week to see how that works but am thinking I may stick with the 28-105. I have one more shoot today that I am going to try the 28-135 with but am pretty sure its back to Canoga Camera (14 day return policy.)

BTW - my other main lens is the Canon 75-300 IS USM. It's a nice lens as long as you shoot at at least f8 and up to 275mm (300mm is usable but not very sharp). I have many samples of that lens on my ImageEvent galleries. (Any gallery dated after April 20, 2005 with telephoto shots has some taken with that lens.) http://imageevent.com/24peter

[TheObiJuan]

I'm purchasing the 75-300mm EF IS but I'll need something for 75mm and below. I have the 50mm prime but I'm not looking for any more primes at the moment. I am, however, torn between the 17-85mm EF-S and the 28-135mm EF IS.

I like the wider angle of focus on the EF-S...but it's the EF-S that scares me. I do have the XT so the compatibility isn't an issue. The reason I'm not certain which to purchase is that I may upgrade sometime in the future to perhaps the Mark IIs...and it's not a compatible lens. However if the quality is pristine for the price, I could use it *for now* since upgrading cameras is a long ways off, or at least until using the camera & lenses would pay for themselves via local PJ or print ad work.

If anyone has any samples, comparison shots, or comments derived from personal experience I would truly appreciate it.


If you ever plan to upgrade, or even now, with your XT, your lens choices will hold you back. All that you have mentioned, save for the prime, are soft, slow, and poor build. If you spend your money right, on buying the sharper/faster versions you will be happier. I, and others have skimped by buying the cheaper longer zoom ranges, then selling them for a lot less and getting primes or much shorter range zoom lenses.
Try printing at a decent size, say, 8x12, with your 75-300. It is a very soft lens, even at f/8. I had it and swapped to the sigma 70-300 apo because of the macro function and apochromatic element.

If you do pj work then you will NEED to shoot below f/8, this is why many pj's go with higher quality, faster primes or short zoom lenses.

I apologize if I am sounding high and mighty, it is not my intention. I just want to save you money and time.

[cdifoto]

It's kinda funny...I just bought the Bigma instead. No IS but 50-500mm range and I already have a Slik U-212 with pan/tilt head...

I didn't discover the Bigma until today and I already ordered it...ended up costing me about the same as the two other lenses I originally posted about. The way I see it, I can use the kit for basic headshots and group pics and the Bigma can be my primary lens for what I want to do. I do also have the 50mm 1.8 so it can also be used for portraits and walkarounds if I'm in the appropriate range.

[aparmley]

:eek:

[Salivation] ...

...[drip]...

...[drip]...

:D

[cdifoto]

Why the salivation? :rolleyes: :D

[aparmley]

B-B-Bigma...

[cdifoto]

I hope it proves a worthwhile lens.

[Bluedog]

I'll agree about the 28-135mm EF IS ... looking through the PBase galleries the results aren't too impressive.

[ReF]

link to an old thread about the two:

http://dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9781

[Rex914]

The bigma's nice, but are you honesty using that as a "walkaround" lens? I'd be willing to take it to the zoo and such, but as a daily lens, isn't it a bit hefty?

[cdifoto]

The bigma's nice, but are you honesty using that as a "walkaround" lens? I'd be willing to take it to the zoo and such, but as a daily lens, isn't it a bit hefty?

Heck no I aint luggin 4lbs plus camera. lol. I figured for general photography I could use the 50mm 1.8 and/or the kit lens for now. Once my budget grows more I'll fill in the <50mm end with either primes or a really good short range zoom. My next out will be the 580EX Speedlite since I have no flash whatsoever aside from the onboard.

[cdifoto]

She arrived yesterday. Here's a random bird snapshot:

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/Bigma/bird.jpg

Handheld (yes, believe it or not) at full telephoto 500mm. Av, ISO1600, 100% crop, no editing, no PP, no noise reduction. Taken around 8PM when it was just starting to darken outside. Would have been sharper with a tripod of course but barring that I think it turned out nice. What do you think:

[24Peter]

Your Bigma will be awesome in the light of day. :D

Here's a couple of random bird shots I did today with my Canon 75-300 USM IS ($415) and Tamron 1.4X TC ($79) (no processing, straight out of the camera.)

http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/large/IMG_0445.JPG
http://photos.imageevent.com/24peter/upload/large/IMG_0457.JPG

These shots were handheld at 265mm (370mm w/ TC). I need to be up around f14-16 to get sharp shots at 300mm with the Tamron TC but otherwise it's a pretty good combination. (Full AF as well.)

[cdifoto]

I'm still practicing but here's a shot of the moon I just took a few minutes ago. I made it a bit smaller since I'm on dial-up. I liked this one so I made it my desktop wallpaper.

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b100/nftn/Bigma/moon1.jpg

I also printed it as an 8x10 and it turned out nice that way too. I think I'll frame it for on my wall.

[eastbluffs]

May I ask the optimum screen resolution to view? I've tried 1400 x 1050 (my laptop's max) true color, then one down at 1280 x 1024. Both leave jagged edges on the fringes of the birds - and general softness. Or - does this site have capability for a true capture / download so I can try printing?

Perhaps its the dialup you said you're limited to.

I'm looking for a top tele lense in the $500 - 1000 range which both of these qualify for (albiet at the extremes). The Bigma particularly - does it rival L glass? I'm a fairly beginner photographer but don't have much interest in being held to mediocre results in non-social photograph (ie: nature shots) so don't see much sense in buying less than the best, but alas, have a budget like everyone. I know resell value's hold well but is the Bigma considered Pro caliber?

Where'd you get it? Would you recommend them?

(Note: Its going onto a 20D)

PS: Nice Shots! Congrads on the purchase!

[timmciglobal]

The only tele lens you can get price range that is a zoom is the 70-200 F4L.

Maybe that + a 1.4 TC would work for you. If you want to get a prime route which is the maximum sharpness, the 200 F 2.8 L is 659. 300 F 4 IS is about 1200.

Tim

[jamison55]

The only tele lens you can get price range that is a zoom is the 70-200 F4L.

Maybe that + a 1.4 TC would work for you. If you want to get a prime route which is the maximum sharpness, the 200 F 2.8 L is 659. 300 F 4 IS is about 1200.

Tim

Quite a few options in that price range, actually.

First te "L"'s. In addition to the ones that Tim mentioned, if you are willing to go used, you can usually find a 70-200 f2.8L (non-IS) for around $900, or the older 80-200 f2.8L for around $800 (this is the one that I have:http://www.fphoto.org/jamiewexler//abday%20132 ). Check out the buy & sell forum at www.fredmiranda.com.

Off brand, your price range includes the Bigma (a very well respected lens) $800 new, the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 $750 (or Tokina), another worthy "L" adversary. Or the Sigma 80-400 Stabilized $999, or the Sigma 100-300 f4 $899...

Peruse Adorama to see the options in your price range, then peruse PBase to look at sample images taken with the lens you want to purchase, then peruse Fred Miranda to see if you can find them used...

--JAMIE

[Rex914]

It depends on what your needs are. Jamison has already outlined all your choices, and I'll second a few of them.

If you need f/2.8, your only choice under $1000 is the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. If you like the 70-200 f/4 L but wish it went up to 300, the Sigma 100-300 f/4 is an excellent choice. Those are the lenses I'd recommend.

I'd really like to recommend Sigma 80-400 OS, but it's gotten some lukewarm reviews, so I can't wholeheartedly endorse it at this point. It's direct competition from Canon (100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS) is very popular but also happens to cost several hundred dollars out of your price range.

Whatever you choose, I'd recommend getting the appropriate 1.4x extender to further boost the versatility of your lens.

[cdifoto]

Heck no I aint luggin 4lbs plus camera. lol. I figured for general photography I could use the 50mm 1.8 and/or the kit lens for now. Once my budget grows more I'll fill in the <50mm end with either primes or a really good short range zoom. My next out will be the 580EX Speedlite since I have no flash whatsoever aside from the onboard.

I have to retract most of this statement. I love this lens so much I AM lugging it around...I like my 50mm f/1.8 but when I put it on the camera, I feel like it's gonna launch into orbit being so light...still going for the 580EX Speedlite next though. Unless of course Canon makes something even better than that and I have the $$ by then. Still want to get a short range zoom or prime for <50mm as well since I have only the kit for wide angles at this point. Even so, I'm pretty much set up right now, for now.

[speaklightly]

I use the Canon 28-135mm IS on my 20D and I have had a lot of sucess with it. No, it is not very fast either in focus or aperture, but it does produce some good resluts.

Here is a sample.

Sarah Joyce

[George Riehm]

I use the Canon 28-135mm IS on my 20D and I have had a lot of sucess with it. No, it is not very fast either in focus or aperture, but it does produce some good resluts.

Here is a sample.

Sarah Joyce

Sarah, Any other shots with that lens?

[speaklightly]

George-

Here is anothe Canon 28-135mm IS samploe photo for you.

Sarah Joyce

[George Riehm]

George-

Here is another Canon 28-135mm IS sample photo for you.

Sarah Joyce

Thanks Sarah.

[eastbluffs]

The only tele lens you can get price range that is a zoom is the 70-200 F4L.

Maybe that + a 1.4 TC would work for you. If you want to get a prime route which is the maximum sharpness, the 200 F 2.8 L is 659. 300 F 4 IS is about 1200.

Tim

Thanks Tim and all who've added other selections. Sorry I wasn't on for a few days to check response. My question was just a little off-topic.

Well, I went the opposite route to cdi-buy.com. I've gone ahead and purchased a Tamron 28-70 for now.

I found a Bigma on FM for $745 but when it came to coughing up the dough, realized that a respectable mid-ranged lense would suit 80% of my shooting needs for now - at least until I learn how to handle things. So decided to put the $$ into an everyday lense first.

I had rented a Canon 70-200 f2.8 (non-IS) for a weekend. It shot great but was a lot to haul around. Went to an outdoor concert this Sunday with my Canon 18-55mm Kit lense (left the 50mm f1.8 prime at home, dang!) and was just Sooooo disappointed with all the front focus, back focus, blured edges CA all over. Even I could tell the lense wasn't the greatest.

In short; replacing the kit lense with something decent so I can "walk around with respect" was priority.

Can't wait for it to arrive. Ordered it from www.normancamera.com - hopefully it won't get delayed since they said it's in stock.

Per Tim's suggestion, I'll get a 1.4 extender.

QUESTION Tim? Why not get a 2.0 extender?


Thanks for the help!

PS: The Bigma does sound enticing .... some day.

[cdifoto]

Per Tim's suggestion, I'll get a 1.4 extender.

QUESTION Tim? Why not get a 2.0 extender?


Thanks for the help!

PS: The Bigma does sound enticing .... some day.

I could be wrong but I think the 2x extender makes you lose more quality & slows autofocus down a lot more than the 1.4x

[timmciglobal]

AFAIK the 2x converter prevents AF from working on the 70-200 F4L since you need F 5.6 or wider to have AF function on canon bodies. Plus the 2X one reducess image quality pretty far.

Tim

[timmciglobal]

And FYI the 1.4 gives you 156>448 MM or so once you factor in crop. Bring a tripod!

Tim

[24Peter]

I think(?) as a general rule a 1.4XTC cuts your exposure by one stop and a 2X by two stops. So for instance if you put a 2X on a f5.6 telephoto your minimum apeture is now f11 (? Right?)

[cdifoto]

I think(?) as a general rule a 1.4XTC cuts your exposure by one stop and a 2X by two stops. So for instance if you put a 2X on a f5.6 telephoto your minimum apeture is now f11 (? Right?)

I have no idea but if I did that to Bigma it'd kill me on aperture! :eek:

[ReValveiT]

I thought these 'consumer' IS Lenses were supposed to be really soft? Sarah's shots look anything but.

Any PP on those shots, Sarah?

[TheObiJuan]

Any non out of focus image will appear sharp at 72 dpi and 600pixels on the big end.
If Sarah were to post untouched 100% crops, it would be a story,
I would like to see a 100% center crop of the folkoric dancer. Perhaps 800x533 pixels?

[speaklightly]

OK, Obijuan-

Here is the image done exactly to your specifications. The shot was handheld, no flash was used, the exposure was 1/160th at F7.1 at ISO 1600 with auto WB. The size of the sample your requested sample image is 600 X 573. How is that for co-operation.

Sarah Joyce

[24Peter]

I returned my Canon 28-135 IS after using it for almost two weeks. For me it got too slow too fast. By around 60-65mm it was already at f/5.6. Thus for shooting indoors you need the IS. And wideopen at 75-135mm for me the lens was a bit soft. In contrast, my Canon 28-105 USM 3.5-4.5 is pretty sharp wide-open at all focal lengths (glad I ddin't sell it!)

[eastbluffs]

AFAIK the 2x converter prevents AF from working on the 70-200 F4L since you need F 5.6 or wider to have AF function on canon bodies. Plus the 2X one reducess image quality pretty far.

Tim
Thanks Tim. Did not know about the f5.6 requirement for AF. Reduced quality also not good. From the sounds of it most are not concerned with reduced quality on a 1.4 converter.

[eastbluffs]

Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the flow of posts responding only to old issues. Thread regards 28-135 IS and Sarah has posted her nice photos. Sarah, just how much equipment do you own??? You were the first pro who helped me so much on my digital P&S purchase last year and seemed like you had several of those. Now you seem to have every Canon lense. Guess you do love your work.

The 100% crop does reveal some softness (or just blur), but still love the colors & contrast. Probably couldn't sell it but if it were a school play I'd be stoked at the results in such low light. I'm sure technique has a lot to do with it, I'm sure your "handheld" is a lot different than mine - not to mention your timing.

All in all, I'm getting the idea that a good high-end lense with good technique would be preferable to medium quality with IS in most cases.

Since I so love to display my ignorance, I would like to venture a (very rookie) question; if my lense is "Fast" - say 2.8 from end-to-end (like my new Tamron 28 - 70 f2.8) and I'm shooting 70mm at 5.6. The guy next to me has an IS lense at 70mm that is wide open at 5.6 - and the IS is supposed to "save him 2 stops". We both are using ISO 800 on our Canon 20D's. Would my shutter speed be computed faster because its a faster lense? Or does "faster" really mean "potentially faster if you to open it up". Sorry, I've never had to figure out a shutter speed manually so don't know the formulas and just realized I really don't know this critically basic stuff.

[TheObiJuan]

OK, Obijuan-

Here is the image done exactly to your specifications. The shot was handheld, no flash was used, the exposure was 1/160th at F7.1 at ISO 1600 with auto WB. The size of the sample your requested sample image is 600 X 573. How is that for co-operation.

Sarah Joyce

Thanks Sarah.
Although there is a little motion blur, the image is really clean. Noise is practically non-existant.

[TheObiJuan]

Sorry, don't mean to interrupt the flow of posts responding only to old issues. Thread regards 28-135 IS and Sarah has posted her nice photos. Sarah, just how much equipment do you own??? You were the first pro who helped me so much on my digital P&S purchase last year and seemed like you had several of those. Now you seem to have every Canon lense. Guess you do love your work.

The 100% crop does reveal some softness (or just blur), but still love the colors & contrast. Probably couldn't sell it but if it were a school play I'd be stoked at the results in such low light. I'm sure technique has a lot to do with it, I'm sure your "handheld" is a lot different than mine - not to mention your timing.

All in all, I'm getting the idea that a good high-end lense with good technique would be preferable to medium quality with IS in most cases.

Since I so love to display my ignorance, I would like to venture a (very rookie) question; if my lense is "Fast" - say 2.8 from end-to-end (like my new Tamron 28 - 70 f2.8) and I'm shooting 70mm at 5.6. The guy next to me has an IS lense at 70mm that is wide open at 5.6 - and the IS is supposed to "save him 2 stops". We both are using ISO 800 on our Canon 20D's. Would my shutter speed be computed faster because its a faster lense? Or does "faster" really mean "potentially faster if you to open it up". Sorry, I've never had to figure out a shutter speed manually so don't know the formulas and just realized I really don't know this critically basic stuff.


The latter, although since it is a fast lens, it will take advantage of the faster AF. The 350D and 20D have AF systems that are more accurate and faster with f/2.8 and faster lenses.

I suggest a carbon fiber monopod with a high quality non-IS lens. The 70-200 sigma or canon are great alternatives, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is another alternative, but it's a beast. You almost would have to use a monopod even with IS just to keep it off of a tripod.

[jamison55]

Been out for a couple of days tending to the arrival of my firstborn son...which also happened to coincide with the arrival of my Canon 17-85 IS (which replaced my Sigma 18-50 f2.8). I was a little leery of this lens based on past reviews, but had seen some really nice results from friends who shot with it, so I gave it a try (in leiu of a 17-40 f4L).

I have to say that I am really impressed with the little lens. It is plenty sharp and the IS works as advertised. Be trying it out at a wedding tomorrow, but here are a few from my son's first hour...http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/luke_a_wexler

[TheObiJuan]

great, now you got my wife wanting a baby, and me wanting the 17-85IS....

:D


There are some really adorable pics there.
I wish the lens had a faster max aperturetoo.
I need to use my friends for a weekend, then decide.

[Rhys]

Been out for a couple of days tending to the arrival of my firstborn son...which also happened to coincide with the arrival of my Canon 17-85 IS (which replaced my Sigma 18-50 f2.8). I was a little leery of this lens based on past reviews, but had seen some really nice results from friends who shot with it, so I gave it a try (in leiu of a 17-40 f4L).

I have to say that I am really impressed with the little lens. It is plenty sharp and the IS works as advertised. Be trying it out at a wedding tomorrow, but here are a few from my son's first hour...http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/luke_a_wexler


Hmm... I've been waiting for the Tamron 28-75 to come back into the shops. I'm wondering now whether I should get the Sigma 18-50 and maybe another - longer lens in the range 50 - X instead.

[speaklightly]

Congratulations, Jamison on your new born son!

Sarah Joyce

[24Peter]

Yeah, that's wonderful Jamison. Congrats to you and your wife! He's beautiful. Surprised you're even thinking about lenses... You are a true photographer.

Best wishes. :)

Peter

[cdifoto]

Definiminitely congratufulations!

[eastbluffs]

The latter, although since it is a fast lens, it will take advantage of the faster AF. The 350D and 20D have AF systems that are more accurate and faster with f/2.8 and faster lenses.

I suggest a carbon fiber monopod with a high quality non-IS lens. The 70-200 sigma or canon are great alternatives, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS is another alternative, but it's a beast. You almost would have to use a monopod even with IS just to keep it off of a tripod.

Thanks for the tips. I guess faster focus also implies more accurate - however faster and better focus is also required at narrow DOF so good thing! I must say, I tried out a Canon 17-40 f4.0L in the store last night and the AF was FAST! I suppose USM is another ballgame.

I'll get one of those monopods along with my future longer lense purchase. Not too necessary on my 70mm max lense. I did rent a 70-200 f2.8L (non IS) and it was heavy, guessing the IS version even heavier. Does anyone know how that lense (non-IS) compares with the Bigma?

To Jamison; CONGRADS! The start of a whole new world of joy like none other!

[cdifoto]

NOTHING compares with the Bigma....Bigma is 4.5lbs. It's not L glass...but it's a pretty big bang for your buck when you get a good copy...I own it. I'm still practicing with it but if you look at the link in my signature, all the wildlife shots were handheld with Bigma. Any shortcomings you see are my own from lack of experience and proper shutter speed.

[ReF]

Been out for a couple of days tending to the arrival of my firstborn son...which also happened to coincide with the arrival of my Canon 17-85 IS (which replaced my Sigma 18-50 f2.8). I was a little leery of this lens based on past reviews, but had seen some really nice results from friends who shot with it, so I gave it a try (in leiu of a 17-40 f4L).

I have to say that I am really impressed with the little lens. It is plenty sharp and the IS works as advertised. Be trying it out at a wedding tomorrow, but here are a few from my son's first hour...http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/luke_a_wexler

wow, huge step for you! congrats!

[George Riehm]

Been out for a couple of days tending to the arrival of my firstborn son...which also happened to coincide with the arrival of my Canon 17-85 IS (which replaced my Sigma 18-50 f2.8). I was a little leery of this lens based on past reviews, but had seen some really nice results from friends who shot with it, so I gave it a try (in leiu of a 17-40 f4L).

I have to say that I am really impressed with the little lens. It is plenty sharp and the IS works as advertised. Be trying it out at a wedding tomorrow, but here are a few from my son's first hour...http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/luke_a_wexler

Congratulations to you and your wife. I'm sure that this is one life that will be chronicled in images (almost daily). Now the fun begins, and the lens will be nice too. ;)

[jamison55]

Thanks everyone for your well wishes! It has been and hectic and joyous week.

[24Peter]

What's your son's name?

[cdifoto]

What's your son's name?

I think it's Luke, based on the URL to the gallery he posted.

[24Peter]

oops. I knew that. :o

[eastbluffs]

Be trying it out at a wedding tomorrow, but here are a few from my son's first hour...http://www.pbase.com/jamisonwexlerphoto/luke_a_wexler
Wow! Lucky for the IS - no flash shots and all (those helpless little eyes).

Very very very nice. Just showing them to my wife. Congrads again!

One shot I may suggest before too many days pass, when he's strong enough, is just him in your hands. The contrast is amazing, and in a month or 2 he'll seem double the size and its just not the same. That first month they're barely a handful.