canon 17-85 IS vrs canon 28-135 Is

[jann1033]

I figure i am going to have to go with something for the shake...\

1)any opinions on which of these is better?

2)or any other "is" type lenses that would be comparable( only ones i could find for sigma are in the $1000 range) I've heard good and bad about the 28 though i know some here love it but would need something for wider angle with that probably and it's a few oz heavier as well( not sure if the extra weight would make the IS less beneficial since it might just make my arms give out quicker and once my strength is gone i shake tons more and i might as well hang it up for a while. since it's neurological and not lack of use it isn't going to permanently get better although right now it isn't always as bad as lately so i might not always need the IS), the other is more initially but a little more all purpose (i guess?)

3) is there anything other than the 70-300 is that is a little cheaper since i think i probably would need the IS even more at the bigger zoom end...

4)would a teleconverter help with the 17-85?
4a)what are the cons of using a teleconverter other than the loss of light


or guessing this doesn't exist but

5) is there anything else other than a tripod/monopod( more portable and less set up i mean) that would help with shakey hands? i saw an odd looking harness but that wasn't for actual picture taking, just carrying,,,(maybe i could mount the whole camera on the front of a football helmet and use the remote..... course then my head would probably shake )

thanks for any and all input

 

[boBQuincy]

Whichever of these lenses is newer might have a more recent generation of IS. The 17-85 is optically better than the test results might lead you to believe but it still has far too much CA for my tastes.

Canon's 24-105 is not a lot more than $1000 and is a very good lens (although not wide enough, depending on your style). The IS is good down to at least 1/15 s, sometimes even more.

Canon's teleconverters do not fit the 17-85. If any others do they would probably make the image quality of the combination marginal at best.

Some monopods are very compact and very light, but they still give acceptable images down to 1/4 s. It's a good way to improve shaky hands for low cost.

 

[ndelaware]

Of all the reviews I have seen the 17-85 and the 28-135 seem to be about the same quality. The 17-85 gives the same focal legnth on a Rebel Xt that the 28-135 gives on a full frame camera. I have the 28-135 and love it. But I also have wider lenses for when the need arises. I think you'd be better served with the 17-85. It would give you a good wide angle and a pretty good zoom. Especially if you are thinking of getting the 70-300.

I stick to Canon lenses so I can't help you with the altenatives.

There is the Canon 75-300IS that is cheaper but no where near as good a lens as the 70-300. I have a 70-300IS and it is a great lens but honestly it gets less use than any of my other lenses. Unless you find your self constantly needing that much zoom I would wait and get the 70-300.

As far as a teleconverter goes, I think you lose the autofocus feature when you use one.

Wish I could help with the last one. I just haven't seen any thing. Was this an issue with your previous camera or is it just the Rebel XT that is difficult to steady?

 

[jann1033]

Of all the reviews I have seen the 17-85 and the 28-135 seem to be about the same quality. The 17-85 gives the same focal legnth on a Rebel Xt that the 28-135 gives on a full frame camera. I have the 28-135 and love it. But I also have wider lenses for when the need arises. I think you'd be better served with the 17-85. It would give you a good wide angle and a pretty good zoom. Especially if you are thinking of getting the 70-300.

I stick to Canon lenses so I can't help you with the altenatives.

There is the Canon 75-300IS that is cheaper but no where near as good a lens as the 70-300. I have a 70-300IS and it is a great lens but honestly it gets less use than any of my other lenses. Unless you find your self constantly needing that much zoom I would wait and get the 70-300.

As far as a teleconverter goes, I think you lose the autofocus feature when you use one.

Wish I could help with the last one. I just haven't seen any thing. Was this an issue with your previous camera or is it just the Rebel XT that is difficult to steady?

i thought at first it was the old camera or lens since my hands weren't as visibly shaky then but it is my hands...the xt is actually a little lighter and better in that regard than the last time i used the old one
but still too blurry sometimes

 

[Kelly Grannell]

17-85 is so not my favourite. Super CA and vignette between 17-24 (the area I use a lot). If those two are the options, I go with the 28-135 (since I can't use the 17-24 anyway).

My suggestion, should the budget permits, is 17-55 f/2.8 IS. It's a gorgeous lens.

 

[mhutchinson]

The 28-135mm is one of my favorite walk around lenses (even over my 24-105mm L). I very much agree with Kelly on the 17-85mm comments which is why I have shyed away from it. If you would like to go wider in the future you could suplement with a prime or the 17-40mm is another beautiful lens, it doesn't have IS but you really don't need IS for wider shots.

Mike

 

[Kelly Grannell]

If you would like to go wider in the future you could suplement with a prime or the 17-40mm is another beautiful lens, it doesn't have IS but you really don't need IS for wider shots.

Mike

Unless you're crazy like me and take indoor pics with no flash, or take nightshots without flash. I often need to go as low as 1/13 sec shutter speed (even when the ISO have been boosted to 1600) and there is no way with my wrist problem I can do 1/13 without IS, even at 17mm (besides, the ideal minimum shutter speed for 17mm on an APS-C is about 1/30 sec)

Again, this is Krazee Kelly we're talking about.

 

[captaincrash]

I just received...

... my 28-135 IS, and I hae a 70-300 IS. The 28-135 being new leaves me with only initial impressions... and I am very pleased with it. For me - I never considered the 17-85 because it is an "S" lens. As such it cannolt be used on a full frame body - which I want to move into when the price gets more attractive... or a larger intermediary size if Canon milks the market with that sort of tactical decision. Plus - I really like the idea (for now) of using only the sweet center of consumer grade full frame lenses.

Additionally, in my case - I had intended to have a longer end on a carry lense - which the 28-135 serves. I actually like the longer reach that it offers. Plus I have casually observed that the 17-85 got bad reviews. That was not encouraging. AND the final point here - is that I'm shooting with a 10D and it will not accept any S lenses. Ah-Ha.... that should be an absolute reason why I won't consider an S lens. Well... that's not entirely true. As I still have the 18-55 kit lense from my 300D kit. And my crazy pal keeps telling me to HACK the back end of the 18-55 off so it will fit onto the 10D. Well... as radical as this may sound - it would enable me to have a 18-55 lens at no out of pocket cost. If it was good enough (for my modest tastes and pedestrian standards) then I could sell my 20-35 and apply the buidget towards something else.

As for anything else... I try to be cost effective in my lens selections. While at the same time I am currently leaning towards using strictly Canon glass.

TTFN