Ok I am torn between these two lenses for my XTi

1) EF-S 17-85MM f4-5.6 IS USM

2) EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

The majority of shots I take are car shots so can you please let me know which one would be better for car shots.

Also if there is a better lens out there that I dont know about please tell.

Right now I am using these for car pictures and they have done pretty good

1) EF 17-40 1:4L USM
2) EF 28-200 1:3.5-5.6 USM
3) Standard 18-55

 

What is it you think you're missing?

Your 17-40 is going to give you better quality than either of the two lenses you mentioned.

 

I was going to say the same thing. Are you wanting more reach for some reason?

I've used the 17-85 extensively. It's sharp in its sweet spots, but is too soft when wide open at most focal lengths, pretty soft at any aperture at the long end, and has a lot of distortion at the wide end. I'm actually looking to upgrade to the 24-105 f/4L (which is considerably more expensive).

 

I know my 17-40 is doing a great job. But is there a better lens out there?

 

I typed the same thing, that the 17-40 is better quality.

If you are willing to sell the 17-40, and possibly pick up the 17-55, would help in low light situations. I'm not sure where you are shooting these cars, but possibly would help in poorly lit showrooms and the like.

If it's just more reach you need maybe one of the 70-200 would fit, even though you'd be missing some range, but for cars I usually think wider is better. Have you considered an UWA such as the 10-22, sig 10-20, tokie 11-16 or 12-24? I've always liked UWA car shots for some reason.

 

^^ Yes it would be helpful to have some idea of what kinds of images you'd like to take that you aren't able to capture with your current equipment. Better background blur? Better close-ups? More or less distortion? Wider angle of view? ??

 

Sorry I am considerably new to this dslr game. I want a better quality picture with a wide angle... sorry if these are dumb questions.... noob

 

You have the 17-40 L, which to me is better than than the two you're looking at, plus those two are longer, not wide angle. If you need more of a wide angle the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma 10-20mm is what you should be looking at.

There's a couple of pictures here that I shot with a Canon 5D and a 16-35mm, which is about the same focal length on a Xti as the two I mentioned.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/reverse...458319/detail/

 

^^Amazing pictures jupiter.. good job!

Ok so after looking at the 10-22 canon, now the question is which one is better?

the 17-40 L or the 10-22 canon? advantages or disadvantages

 

I've had them both, I like the build quality of the 17-40. Both will give great IQ, it just depends how wide you want to go.

Wndrlst bought my 10-22 (I no longer have ef-s lenses) and I sold the 17-40 to get the 16-35II.

 

Generally the 17-40 will be a more versatile, walk-around type of lens. The 10-22 is considered an ultra-wide angle lens, and is primarily used for wide, sweeping landscapes or to give a certain feel to close-up shots, as jup has demonstrated. Compared to some ultra-wides, the distortion is pretty minimal, but it's definitely there. It's not something you'd want to use for an everyday lens that will give you a perfectly accurate representation of what you're shooting. Of course, if the distortion provides the artistic feel you're looking for, then go for it!

And don't apologize - you're not asking dumb questions, we just need a little more info to be more helpful. It's impossible to decide on a lens without first knowing what you want to shoot.

If you haven't already checked out the stickied lens discussion thread, it might be worth a read. There are some great links in there for further research.

 

it really depends on your style, you can't really compare the 17-40 and 10-22 as they have completely different uses. If you find yourself using the 17-40, always at 17, and still wishing you could fit more into the frame or trying to take steps back, then I'd definitely consider swapping over to a 10-22. if you find yourself using the 22-40 side of your 17-40 a lot, then I would keep it. or if you are using the 40 side a lot wishing you would get closer then maybe consider something else completely.

I would say image quality is probably about the same, 17-40 has a much better build and I think with a filter it is weatherproof, although your camera isn't so that doesn't matter too much.

I would honestly want both though. I know there is some overlap, but some overlap just means you don't have to switch lenses nearly as much.

 

Well put.

 

I took a few pictures with wndrlst's 17-85 at a car show.

Take a gander if you want, for car shots, the 17-85 did a pretty good job and like wndrlst said, at wide open, the edges can get a bit soft.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/hanx40d...7604891493551/

 

You want it?

 

Sure.

 

Well, as stated, the 10-22 is an ultra wide lens.
the 17-40 is a wide angle lens. They aren't really comparable, and you could quite possibly end up with both.

Ultra wides are mainly for landscapes, or big group shots.
There is distortion, but it's pretty reasonable, IF the lens is level.
Otherwise, the distortion can get a bit crazy and you need to use some fisheye correction. You probably need correction anyway if you frame people on the edges, where the distortion is higher. It doesn't take much distortion on a person to make you go 'hmm'. Although it's my favorite lens, it's not a practical lens to have as your only lens.

- Frank

 

theres a new tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 that is getting some pretty rave reviews. It's about the same price as the sigma and faster than the sigma and canon, worth a look.

 

^ Hmmm...

 

link? that would be sweet, but isnt the 1mm difference quit alot at ultra wide?

 

http://tokinalens.com/products/tokin...16prodx-a.html

No pricing here, just the manufacturer info.

 

There's a group on flickr for 11-16mm Tokina users and the reviews look great.

I'm really interested in it as well. Maybe my next lens? (After I buy wndrlst's lens)

 

the only complaint i've heard of the 11-16 is that it really isn't much of a zoom. The 5mm range, is practically a prime, you can finely tune.

I'll probably eventually want to sell my 12-24 for the 11-16, but for now the 12-24 is basically my walk around, and i've heard the 11-16 is out of stock basically everywhere, although I haven't tried looking for one recently.

 

Ok so I found out yesterday that my family and I are taking a trip to Jackson Hole and Yellowstone for a few days.

So it prompted me to order a few new goodies!!

1. Ordered the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
2. Ordered the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
3. Ordered the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM
4. Ordered the Wolverine BP202 Camera and Laptop

The 10-20mm is mainly going to be my main lens for my car and i think i will be able to get some good scenery photos..

The 50mm was a little birthday gift from my uncle. I wanted to order the f/1.4 but decided against it and got the f/1.8

The 100-400 is for both me and my mom. I mainly got this one because my mom wanted a lens with enough reach so she could take pictures at my football games. I think this will be a fun lens

And it was about time for a backpack so hopefully i got a good one

 

Congrats. I'm sure you'll get much use out of them.

Just a couple of thoughts on the 100-400...
- will be great for wildlife in and around Yellowstone
- will not be great for night football games, since there probably won't be enough light to get decent shutter speeds - especially on the longer end.

 

When is comes to camera bags, you'll find that it's a lot like women and their purses. I've sold four camera bags in the last year. Happy with what I have but I'll always be looking something "better".

 

most of my games are on saturday so i doubt light will be a problem on a hot texas day

 

Cool. Then it should work out great.

I guess "Friday Night Lights" does sound better than "Saturday Scortching Afternoon Sun"

 

Congrats on the new purchases

 

 

dang when I was 18, I didn't even own a camera or a cell phone, and I think was still using a portable cd player.

And my computer was like a 266 pentium I.

That was only like 6 years ago too.... I am jealous.

 

6 years is a long time thou.

although for me i had a good computer 6 years ago because i got a job and wasted all my money on a new computer