Shutterstock Photographer Forum :: View topic

dustine · Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:51 pm

I just purchased a Canon 50D and it came with a nice lens, a 28-135 mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS.

I already have an EF-S 17-85 f4-5.6 IS, which I purchased because I needed a wide angle lens.

The new lens also seems to take pretty good wide angle shots so I'm wondering if there any reason why I would need both these lenses? I'm afraid I'm too new to this stuff to make an informed decision.

If I don't need both, which is the better lens to keep and which should I sell?

Any help will be appreciated! Thanks!

vclements · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:05 am

If you see a variable aperture on a zoom, odds are it's consumer material and thus questionable quality.

If you are looking for glass for stock, then sell both of your consumer zooms and look at a Tamron 90 macro or a Canon L equiv

Hopefully a Canon person will jump in to provide more specifics as I am a Nikon guy and not fully appraised of the Canon offerings.

Wally? Dave R?? Help??

dustine · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:40 am

Thanks VC, but what about wide angle? I think the equivelent of the lens you are talking about in the Canon might be the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro, but I also need something for wide angle shots.
Would the 100 do that too?

Walley, Dave?

supertramp · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:15 am

Hi ho. Wally here...

Both are quite good lenses and both have their place. The 28-135mm lens will give you a better OOF background in portrait situation at the longer end. And like you said, the 17-85mm lens has that wide angle.

If you'd rather shoot landscapes and wide angled shots, then hang onto the 17-85mm cos you can use it for portrait work at the 85mm end. But do a test to see which is sharper at 85mm @f8/f11.

Hope that helps which to keep.

But there are other options if you want to get the best.

ef-s 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 for really wide on the cropped sensor cameras.
ef-s 17-55mm f2.8 for 'normal', again for cropped sensors.
ef 24-105mm f4L IS or ef 24-70mm f2.8 for truly amazing images.
and at the longer end ef 70-200mm f4L IS or the ef 70-200mm f2.8L IS, or even the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS for sports and wildlife.
And for macro work, any of Canon's macros would be good. Longer the lens the father the working distance but the shallower the DOF for a given f-stop.

Don't rule out third party lenses as a few of them are quite good.

Sigma's Macros lenses and the 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG

I know Tokina and Tamron have a few good lenses but I haven't used them so I really can't comment on them.

tank_bmb · Joined: 04 Apr 2005 Posts: 1790 Location: Cincinnati, OH

For me the 17-85 is a more useful zoom range on a cropped sensor. If you don't shoot a lot of wide angle, then the 28-135 may make more sense to you. The 28-135 will equate to 45mm on the long end which would not work for me.

Personally, I think both lenses are okay but not great lenses. I've owned the 17-85 a long time ago and it was average on the wide end up to about 28mm (which is better than no wide angle for me) and pretty good beyond 28mm. It can suffer from vingetting and distortion though.

Also, it has been announced that the 17-85 has effectively been replaced by a new 15-85mm lens that is coming out.

If you had sufficient funds, I would sell both and add some money to the pot to get the 17-55/2.8 IS.

Otherwise, Supertramp summed up the best Canon offerings pretty well in his post above.

dustine · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 11:52 am

Wow, you guys are terrific! I'm heading out the door to go to a wilderness safari drive through park that's about an hour away. I'm going to use both lenses today, and then when I get back I'll study what you guys have both said in depth, study my pictures and come to a conclusion on what to do. You've all been a huge help! Thanks!

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

Vince is right. Sell both and get something else.

You'll get what, $300 to $350 apiece on Craig's List?

Best option for that kind of money would likely be the 17-40mm f/4L, for around $600.

If you can throw in a few extra bucks (like, $300 or $400 more), go for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. Best zoom for crop.

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

supertramp · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 7:27 pm

Hmm... You may be right there. Have to look into that cos there ain't a whole lot of DOF with my 180mm macro.

That 100mm IS looks sweet, don't it.

supertramp · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:25 pm

Well, it seems that the DOF is the same whether its 50mm or 180mm for the same subject size. What does change is what you mentioned as the background being more separated from the subject.

hgwood · Joined: 26 May 2009 Posts: 135

PaulCowan · Joined: 24 Feb 2005 Posts: 3504 Location: Evolving

The 17-40 is possibly Canon's worst L lens. Maybe it is ok on the 1.6 crop bodies, but the blurring in the corners and the CA it produces full frame is horrific. You know what it feels like getting rejections for soft corners when using L glass? Not nice!

The first question to ask is, what do you shoot? For wildlife you want the longer lens, for landscapes you want the wider one. For product shots, either of them or maybe a 50mm prime.

davidcrehner · Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4839

17-40mm is decent on 1.6 crop.

Even on crop there is significant CA and some softness in the corners, but not rejection-worthy. Beautiful colour rendition, though.

A 28-135mm lens for wildlife? Hmm...