Canon 17-85 or 18-135?

lucky_13

lucky_13

Suspended / Banned
Messages
624
Name
Billy
Edit My Images
Yes
Im thinking of selling my 55-250 as I hardly ever use it, it's still under warranty, and maybe getting a canon 17-85 or the 18-135 I'm also getting the tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC but I was wandering **** one would be better from the 2 canons? So canon 17-85 is usm f4-5.6 VS Canon 18-135 f3.5-5.6 (no usm on this one though)
 
The 18-135 is a very useful general / walkabout lens. Very sharp, beautiful colour rendition and very good IS. Its micro dc focus but it's fast enough to catch even my mental dalmatian at full chat on the beach!

The only thing I don't like about it is the lens creep when not in use and pointing downwards, but I can live with that.

Not tried the 17-85. I should imagine the IQ is roughly the same but you lose out in range. I don't really think USM is important on mid range and wide lenses but then I love it on my 10-22 but never use it to catch anything moving quickly!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
The 18-135 is a very useful general / walkabout lens. Very sharp, beautiful colour rendition and very good IS. Its micro dc focus but it's fast enough to catch even my mental dalmatian at full chat on the beach!

The only thing I don't like about it is the lens creep when not in use and pointing downwards, but I can live with that.

Not tried the 17-85. I should imaging the IQ is roughly the same but you lose out in range. I don't really think USM is important on mid range and wide lenses but then I love it on my 10-22 but never use it to catch anything moving quickly!
Click to expand...

How does it compare to the 18-55 is jim?
 
Well, it's gives you far more range! :)

I've only used the mk1 18-55 and it's much much better, but I've not used the mk2 IS so can't compare. In all though, it's as good as it's get iq wise for that sort of lens. The only equivalents really are the Sigma 18-125 OS and the Canon 18-200. It's better than both in terms of iq in my experience ( MUCH better than the 18-200!).
 
From what I'v read the 18-135 has the advanatge in range and fewer chromatic aberrations(easily correctable in DPP though) , the 17-85 has the advanatge with pretty much everything else, slightly wider, better build, much sharper at the tele end, faster quieter AF and fulltime manual focusing.
 
The early reviews on the 18-135 should be taken with a pinch of salt. It's razor sharp at 135mm. I've not been so surprised by the performance of a lens as when I first tried the 18-135, it's far better than the early reviews (dp review and photozone etc) suggested from their early production copy!
 
I've used the 17-85 and I used to have the 18-135. I prefer the 18-135 out of the two, it's a sharp lens with great range and lovely bokeh. Focusing isn't lightning fast but its good enough for general use.
 
odd jim said:
The 15-85 is a stunning lens indeed! But expensive! If you can afford it though it would be the ideal lens.
Click to expand...

How does the 18-135 compare to the 15-85?
 
CSB said:
I've used the 17-85 and I used to have the 18-135. I prefer the 18-135 out of the two, it's a sharp lens with great range and lovely bokeh. Focusing isn't lightning fast but its good enough for general use.
Click to expand...

Thank u, I wanted to hear from someone who used both. What have u replaced it with?
 
Last edited:
I would look at a sigma 17-70os 2.8-4 its cheaper than the canon 15-85
 
I've just upgraded from the 18-135 to the 15-85, initially I missed the extra reach but the difference in iq more than makes up for it.

The 15-85 feels solid compared the 18-135 and that extra 3mm makes a big difference on the wide end.
 
lucky_13 said:
Thank u, I wanted to hear from someone who used both. What have u replaced it with?
Click to expand...

Nothing at the moment, I have a Tamron 17-50 which is my main lens. The 18-135 was a supplement to that for when I wanted more reach. I've been thinking of trying an 15-85 but if a 18-135 comes up for the right price in the classifieds I will probably get another one of those. I wouldn't consider the 17-85, it has too much chromatic aberration for my liking.
 
CSB said:
Nothing at the moment, I have a Tamron 17-50 which is my main lens. The 18-135 was a supplement to that for when I wanted more reach. I've been thinking of trying an 15-85 but if a 18-135 comes up for the right price in the classifieds I will probably get another one of those. I wouldn't consider the 17-85, it has too much chromatic aberration for my liking.
Click to expand...

Ok thank you. I'm getting the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 VC too as a main lens and like u wanted something with a bit more reach when out and about as the 55-250 isn't ideal as a walk about lens or even to use at Colchester Zoo I find I use the 18-55 more than I do the 55-250. Maybe the 15-85 would make more sense as a walk about aspecialy for around city's
 
I know the 18-135 has better built quality but how does the 18-135 compare to the 55-250 IQ wise and sharpness?
 
Probably agree with the others and just get the 15-85mm instead of the Tamron plus one other

The two you mentioned are getting on a bit now and neither were that great
 
tijuana taxi said:
Probably agree with the others and just get the 15-85mm instead of the Tamron plus one other

The two you mentioned are getting on a bit now and neither were that great
Click to expand...

The Tammy is a great lens mate especially in low light where the 15-85 is not!
Alt ought 15-85 is sharp and a nice size the Tammy is just as sharp only better in low light. I wanted a replacement for my 55-250 as it doesn't get too much use which is why I thought the cheaper than 15-85 18-135 would come in handy. Or maybe the tamron 70-300 VC USD
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
You seemed to want a bit more reach. As good as the Tamron may be it is really an upgrade for the kit lens. The 15-85 gives a much bigger range, particularly at the zoom end. Unless you really need 2.8 I'd agree with Tijuana Taxi and just get the 15-85.
Click to expand...

True but unfortunately I need both reach and f2.8 as I do struggle in low light situations to be honest I'd probably end up getting both but at different times as the current financial situation won't permit for both at the same time.
 
Can't you just bump the ISO up a bit, is one stop really going to make such a difference?

With modern technology higher ISO's are more than usable, not like when 400 was about it, not often I find myself using f/2.8 and never going to be at its sharpest

What would the 70-300 really give you over the longer lens you already have apart from the extra 50mm and a bigger hole in your wallet
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
Probably agree with the others and just get the 15-85mm instead of the Tamron plus one other

The two you mentioned are getting on a bit now and neither were that great
Click to expand...

The 18-135 is one of Canons newest lenses!
 
tijuana taxi said:
Can't you just bump the ISO up a bit, is one stop really going to make such a difference?

With modern technology higher ISO's are more than usable, not like when 400 was about it, not often I find myself using f/2.8 and never going to be at its sharpest

What would the 70-300 really give you over the longer lens you already have apart from the extra 50mm and a biger hole in your wallet
Click to expand...

The tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC I have seen test shots vs the canon 15-85 the tamron is sharper and the canon suffers from more CA than the Tammy. As for the 70-300 VC is a very sharp lens and it is compared with the canons 70-300 L and the 100-400. And I don't think the 55-250 is very sharp at all and the AF is sloooow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top