17-85 IS USM vs. 18-135 IS

<p class="first"]Hello everyone,


I've got a Canon 450D with a 18-55 lens...


I think I can get higher quality pics with a better lens and also sometimes I need higher focal length.


I have been reading many reviews on the internet about these lenses (17-85 &amp; 18-135)... I think I want a versatile walking around lens, but still don't know which one.


There are of course other brands like sigma that I don't know anything about them.
<p class="last"]I was wondering if somebody can shed a light on me...

<p class="last"]
<p class="last"]Thanks

Hey and welcome,


I haven't used any of both lenses you mention, but if you like your focal length now and you're in this budget. I would suggest you to seriously take a look at the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 "non-VC"


It will give you very good image-quality and the f2.8 aperture will make your photos much more pleasing.


If you think you'd really need the IS, you could keep the 18-55 for those occasions.


Both the 17-85 and 18-135 have variable apertures like your 18-55 and with an f5.6 you're pretty limited in some occasions.


Have a look at the Tamron,


Jan

Hi K1_zav:


First welcome to the site. It really is a great place to learn more about our gear and how to use it.


I have an EOS 17-85, used it for my walking around lens before I splurged and got the 17-55. I got good results for what it is, a lower price EOS lens and it has IS USM, that is Image Stabilization and Ultrasonic Motor for AF. It is a good lens for what it is. I know nothing about the Tamron lens that Jan suggests. Remember that you have a 1.6 crop factor with your body I believe . To figure out what the virtual mm are taking into account the 1.6 crop factor you just take the numbers of the lens that you are looking at and multiply them by 1.6. So the 17-85 would act about 27- 136 on a full frame camera.


After I bought the EOS 17-55 I tried to sell the 17-85 it comes with a Moose Peterson's filter which is actually a warming Circular Polarizing filter which are really two filters in one. With the poor economy last year I got offers that were way to low and I never relisted it. If you are interested I was asking $280.00 for both items last summer and would take the same this year It has not been used since my purchase of the 17-55 and has about 1200 actuation's on it. comes with instruction booklet also.





Godspeed:


Wayne






<div id="refHTML"]</div>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by K1_zav

I think I can get higher quality pics with a better lens and also sometimes I need higher focal length.

---

Well, the 18-55 actually has very good resolution. If you want to get more range, the 18-135 and 17-85 will do that for you, but the sharpness is not any better than the lens you already have (in fact, in some cases it's worse).

• Cheap
• Sharp
• Zoom

<div>Pick any two. Want sharp and cheap? Stay with your 18-55, but you wont get much zoom.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Want sharp and zoom? Go up to the much more expensive EF-S 15-85, but it wont be cheap.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Want cheap and zoom? Go with the 18-135, but it wont be sharp.</div>
<div></div>
<div>Personally, I chose the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 because I wanted it to be very sharp and have a fast f-number. If you can consider using multiple lenses, that is what I would encourage you to do. But if you would really prefer to have one lens, try to get the 15-85.</div>

<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />
<div>


Thanks everyone for the answers. Actually I am not specialist in photography and this is the first lens that I want to get simply because of the range of my current lens.


Wayne, thanks for your suggestion. I will contact you.


Daniel it was very good explanation. But actually I dont have much budget to get 15-85...


and the main issue for me is the range of the lens. I don't want it to be really versatile like 18-200 cuz I know that leads to a lens with less quality.


Bests,


Keivan
</div>