28-135 vs. 17-85?

mercphoto

Any comparisons between Canon's 28-135 and the 17-85? While I like my 28-135 quite a bit, I find it soft wide open, and I find I often want something wider than 28.

So, two options spring to mind. The 17-40/4L, or the 17-85. I know the 17-40 is great. I've heard mixed reviews of the 24-70. Nice thing about the 17-85 is it covers the range of both lenses.

ziggy53

Bill,


I was hoping someone who owns this lens (17-85) would reply, but since they haven't:

I too am looking at this lens and my research seems to indicate that it is a very good lens from about 28mm to 85mm, with very good sharpness and contrast.

At 24mm and less, the lens has problems with sharpness and CA, and at full wide it also has barrel distortion and some samples exhibit edge problems like true vignetting at f4.

I would only use the lens sparingly at 17mm, so I'm not as concerned as some. The lens is a little slow, f4-f5.6, considering its cost, but most folks find the speed of focus very good. The IS seems to work well on this model and allow ridiculously slow shutter speeds hand-held at full wide.

For a $600 lens I would expect a hood and I think it's pretty sad that Canon makes it an optional accessory.

I guess for me the lens is a little pricey and I might be happier with a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 or Sigma 24-70 f2.8 although Sigma seems to be getting a reputaion for poorer QC than Tamron.

Thoughts welcome.

ziggy53

mercphoto

Thanks for replying. I, too, have read a lot about the poor wide angle performance of the 17-85. I have since decided against this lens in favor of the 17-40/4L because of this. I already own the 28-135, so the decent performance of the 17-85 from 28mm and up is of zero benefit to me.