Canon 17-85mm IS Vs. Canon 28-135mm IS.....Which is better?

The Wild Eye

Hello All

I'm shopping for a new camera (40D I believe) and a new wide angle lens to shoot my landscapes with....I've been shooting with a Sigma 28-105 2.8 It's been a great lens but it's time to get something with IS but not time to break the bank.

These are the two lenses I'm looking at Canon 17-85mm IS and the Canon 28-135mm IS. I should be able to get either under $400 so if there is another lens in this price range I'm missing please also feel free to share that as well.

As a side note I'm also thinking of getting the Canon 10-22mm lens with either purchase. I have a friend who wants to split the cost with me on that one. And my only other lens is a Canon 100-400mm IS.

I look forward to every ones thoughts.......thanks

Nikolai

The Wild Eye wrote:

These are the two lenses I'm looking at Canon 17-85mm IS and the Canon 28-135mm IS.

I used to own both, even at the same time. I found out 28-135 was mostly sitting on the shelf, so I sold it after ~6 months.
I stayed with 17-85 as my "workhorse" lens for almost two years until I finally upgraded to 17-55/2.8 last summer.
However, in all fairness, I do believe it primarily depends on one's shooting habits, regular subjects, etc.
HTH
My lineup: 10-20, 17-55/2.8, 50/1.8, 70-200/2.8 IS, 100/2.8 macro, 100-400

Tee Why

28-135 is a "normal" zoom that covers a wide angle to a short telephoto range.
17-85 is a "normal" zoom to mimic the range of the 28-135mm for a cropped sensor like the 40D.

For landscape use, the 28-135 may not be wide enough for most on a cropped sensor. Therefore, I'd recommend the 17-85 out of your two choices.

If you are looking at landscapes, I'd probably recommend an ultrawide instead of those normal zooms. Canon 10-22 is certainly a good choice. I use a Sigma 10-20 b/c it's also a nice lens and much cheaper. If you are looking for a 17-50mm range zoom though, also consider a Tamron 17-50 for it's superior optics and also a Sigma 17-70mm. I personally think they offer better optics for the bucks.

GSPeP

For landscapes I would also recommend the 17-85. I have the 28-135 but I'm not impressed with the image quality. And it's not wide enough for landscapes (especially on cameras with cropped sensor)

evoryware

My 28-135 is stuck in my bag since I got the 24-70. It is nice to have when 70 isn't far enough, but that's why I have the 70-200, which I'll choose anytime over the 28-135. I may sell it, but I was very happy with the image quality.
Anyway, it's not wide enough for my tastes for landscapes. Of the three, I'd get the 10-22. It fills the wide end of the range of lenses I have or plan to get.