Canon EF 28-135 / EF-S 17-85 / EF-S 15-85

[distant.star]

I'd also add a 50mm 1.8 or a 40mm 2.8 to your kit, cause they are inexpensive and will give you faster apertures to handle lower light than the standard zoom.

Why would he need two 50mm f/1.8 lenses? He said he already has one. How will two give him faster apertures?

I also will counsel the 15-85. It's not the perfect, ideal lens, but I guess it isn't meant to be. For most uses mentioned, it's just about right. Depending on the unit you get, you'll probably deal with some lens creep, but it's manageable and a small price to pay for the versatility and image quality.

[dasgetier]

I just registered here to say: As an ex user, don't get the 17-85, you would regret it.
From what I have heard and seen, the 15-85 will be a much better pick.

[shadowsatnight]

+1 on the 15-85 being a nice lens - we still use it as our standard zoom on the 7D.  That said, given my time again i'd probably go for the 17-55 f/2.8 (even more expensive! :-/) as, while it doesn't have such a great range, it's handy for activating the second f/2.8 cross type on the 50D's central focus point and general lower light focus/use.

Are you aware of the creep on the 15-85 though?  Ours has started to get pretty bad after a year from new, but a chunk of that's been with the lens hanging downwards from the body on a strap, so possibly not the best care regime.

-Evie

[BruinBear]

I will have to throw in another vote for the sigma 17-50 f/2.8 OS.  It is definitely one of the sharpest lenses Ive used for crop, even wide open.  It is as sharp if not better at some lengths than the canon 24-70L mkI, on crop sensors, and the OS is useful sometimes.  My only issues with it are the lack of full time manual focusing, slightly cheap feeling build quality, and the bokeh, which sometimes just looks horrendous.

[TomTom]

WOW thanks everybody.  Went away for dinner and now basically have an answer.  Will be waiting a bit longer to pick up the 15-85.  I'm trying to build my kit up bit by bit so from the sound of it this should keep me going for quite a while.  If a good deal comes up I might spring for the sigma as the 2.8 would probably be handy.

Are you aware of the creep on the 15-85 though?  Ours has started to get pretty bad after a year from new, but a chunk of that's been with the lens hanging downwards from the body on a strap, so possibly not the best care regime.

-Evie

Wasn't aware of any creep on this lens, but think i'll pick one up from a real store or amazon, so if it is a problem I can look at getting it swapped.  Thanks for the heads up.

you can buy a refurb from Canon direct and save some money.  my 15-85 is awesome and What convinced me to get a refurb was someone here (neuro I think) brought up the point that many refurbs have almost no use and all are individually inspected and tuned so the QC is better than if bought new

EDIT:  Reread and noticed that you are british.  It doesnt look like Canon UK has a real online store (they do have an ebay account though).  Not sure if anyone knows of a EU refurb store of it is just us yanks that enjoy this

Yeah if a refurb was an option it would definitely be the path i'd take, but the uk ebay store only ever seems to have a couple of prime lenses available.

Thanks again everyone.

[neuroanatomist]

I strongly recommend the 15-85 and have to disagree a bit about the build quality. I've been banging this lens around for the past three years with no issues.

When someone says it doesn't have "L" build quality – well that depends on what "L" lens you are referring to, since Canon has absolutely no standards or consistency for defining an "L" lens. The 15-85 is not weather-sealed, but neither are many of the "L" lenses. It's not made of metal, but it's certainly not lightweight or plastic-y either.

The build quality of the 15-85 is similar to the 17-55/2.8, which I used extensively.  The 17-55 is quite similar in size and weight to the 24-105L, but the 24-105 feels much more solid, from the better size and damping of the MF ring to the soft shhhuck at the end of the zoom extension, compared to the hollow clunk of the 17-55.  I'm not saying the build of the 15-85 and 17-55 is poor - far from it, they are solid and durable lenses, and the build quality differential between them and the consumer zooms is much greater than that between them and their L-lens counterparts.  But the L-series lenses are a cut above (to varying degrees, of course - sure, the 24-105L is well built, but I bet I could smash one to bent metal and powdered plastic and glass with a supertele prime, and still use the supertele).

[Mt Spokane Photography]

When Canon has the refurbished 15-85 on their 20% off sale like they did last weekend, its a bargain.  Buyers of 5D Mark II bodies are getting 24-105mm L lenses for $700.  That is also a steal.
I've had several 28-135 lenses that were kit lenses bought with new 40D's.  I never really liked them.  They are totally the wrong focal length to use as a standard zoom for a crop camera.
My 15-85 is much better than the 28-135.  As far as value to the buyer, that can be argued according to what you use it for.  The 17-55mm EF-S is the best, but you are not considering it.

[gilmorephoto]

Are you aware of the creep on the 15-85 though?  Ours has started to get pretty bad after a year from new, but a chunk of that's been with the lens hanging downwards from the body on a strap, so possibly not the best care regime.

-Evie

I've had mine for about a year (I carry mine around as an all-purposes lens, FWIW) and no lens creep, with a small caveat:  if the lens is pointed down and between 15-28mm or between 50-85mm then no creep whatsoever--go ahead and run with it.  But if you leave it in the in between area of 30-45mm or so, it will start to creep a bit. But not as bad as my old 18-135mm and not an issue for me since I keep it at 15mm when not actively shooting.

(I believe this was noted in some review I read a while back, and this proved true in my case).

[Andy_Hodapp]

I have a 28-135, I have been meaning to get rid of it, don't know why they sell it with crop bodys, it pretty much starts at 50 which is way to long for a walk around zoom lens.  Hope I can get $200 or more on the evilbay.  Also I would recommend the Canon 17-40mm F/4L USM if you have the money, I got mine for $500 on ebay in great condition, has served me so well.  Here are some shots I've taken with my 17-40, I've taken some of my favorite and most profitable pic with it.

[Jim K]

I started with a 50D and the 100-400 and tossed in the 28-135 because I needed something "normal" and it was only $200 in the kit. My 28-135 IQ is OK and it doesn't creep, it RUNS downhill. I switched to 7Ds but kept the 50D as it was not worth that much used.

I added the 15-85 after it was released and got good reviews. It serves as the normal lens on the 7D and for snapshots goes back to the 50D and does a fine job. I'm very pleased with it.

Save up and get the 15-85, you will be very happy with it. It's interesting how much "wider" 15mm is vs an 18mm lens. On a crop it works out like a 24-136 on a FF.

[pj1974]

Back in the day, I bought the 28-135 with my original (first) Canon DSLR (350D) - which served me well.  (I also had the kit lens 18-55mm for wider angle shots)

I now own a 7D, and the lens I use the most is my 15-85.  It has a noticeable edge in both sharpness and contrast over the 28-135, though with post processing the 28-135 can still achieve good results.  I think I had a good copy of the 28-135.

The 15-85 is clearly better, matching some comparable L lenses ... The 15-85 is good in build quality (but not up to my 70-300mm L).  The 15-85 has a more effective Is (3.5 to 4 stop IS). The 28-135mm has an older 1.5 to 2 stop IS.  USM focussing is almost identical on both.

The biggest benefit for the 15-85 is the focal range (as others have pointed out above).  It served me very well - for a 10 day interstate holiday in Tasmania (Australia), it's just so versatile when you don't want to change lenses.

The 17-85 is not so good (not sharp, and more CA) at wide end... but similar to the 28-135mm in other ways (apart from a newer 3 stop IS). Obviously the 17-85 has a more useful range on a crop sensored DSLR than the 28-135.

The 15-85 is sharp wide open and from wide angle to telephoto.  I love it as a great all purpose lens. 

Best regards

Paul

[old_york]

.......But the L-series lenses are a cut above (to varying degrees, of course - sure, the 24-105L is well built, but I bet I could smash one to bent metal and powdered plastic and glass with a supertele prime, and still use the supertele).

I would pay good money to see this!
Actually, have you just invented a new sport?

[albron00]

I've had 15-85mm and I have 17-55mm
Both are excellent lenses. 
Sold 15-85 and kept 17-55 because of f/2.8.
By the way, 15-85 has zoom creep

[insanitybeard]

I strongly recommend the 15-85 and have to disagree a bit about the build quality. I've been banging this lens around for the past three years with no issues.

When someone says it doesn't have "L" build quality – well that depends on what "L" lens you are referring to, since Canon has absolutely no standards or consistency for defining an "L" lens. The 15-85 is not weather-sealed, but neither are many of the "L" lenses. It's not made of metal, but it's certainly not lightweight or plastic-y either.

The build quality of the 15-85 is similar to the 17-55/2.8, which I used extensively.  The 17-55 is quite similar in size and weight to the 24-105L, but the 24-105 feels much more solid, from the better size and damping of the MF ring to the soft shhhuck at the end of the zoom extension, compared to the hollow clunk of the 17-55.  I'm not saying the build of the 15-85 and 17-55 is poor - far from it, they are solid and durable lenses, and the build quality differential between them and the consumer zooms is much greater than that between them and their L-lens counterparts.  But the L-series lenses are a cut above (to varying degrees, of course - sure, the 24-105L is well built, but I bet I could smash one to bent metal and powdered plastic and glass with a supertele prime, and still use the supertele).

The main difference I notice between my L and non L zooms is the quality/feel of the focus rings- the L's are much wider and smoother/nicely damped, compared to my EF-S 10-22, which has a nice smooth zoom ring but a thin and slightly 'scratchy' focus ring. My EF-S 60 macro has a wider and smoother focus ring than the 10-22 but still not as nice as the L's. I do like the feel and build of the L's.

[neuroanatomist]

.......But the L-series lenses are a cut above (to varying degrees, of course - sure, the 24-105L is well built, but I bet I could smash one to bent metal and powdered plastic and glass with a supertele prime, and still use the supertele).

I would pay good money to see this!
Actually, have you just invented a new sport?

Maybe...but notice I said a 24-105 and supertele, not my 24-105 and supertele.