Canon has bundled two different IS lens kits with the new EOS 40D (at least at where I'm from, which is in Toronto).

One is the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM.
The other is EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM.

I'm no expert in lenses, so in general, I want to ask which one is preferred for general shooting? (and they both seem very general to me)

I understand that each covers a range of their own (the 17-85 is more wide angle; while the 28-135 is more telephoto), however the 17-85 is ~15% more expensive than the other. Anyone has any idea why?

Is it because the wider angle lens should me more expensive?
But the 28-135 has a slightly larger aperture...
Is it because the EF-S mount is newer?

Here are some specs I find on Canon's website:

EF-S 17-85mm:
angle of view: 78°30' - 18°25'
construction: 17 Elements in 12 Groups
6 diaphram blades
min aper: f/22-36
closest focusing dist: 0.35cm
filter diameter: 67mm
weight: 475g

EF 28-135mm:
angle of view: 75° - 18°
construction: 16 Elements in 12 Groups
6 diaphram blades
min aper: f/22-36
closest focusing dist: 0.5cm
filter diameter: 72mm
weight: 540g



I realize that the 35mm equivalent for the 17-35mm lens is 28-135mm on the 40D, maybe I should opt for this one and get a cheap 70-300mm for the telephoto purpose?!

Constructive ideas/comments/suggestions are welcomed.
Much thanks.

引用:

原帖由 Maverick 於 2007-12-21 23:29 發表
Off the two lens you mentioned,
Both lens suit general purpose use.
In my opinion, 17-85mm would be better than 28-135mm.

Thanks Maverick.

Yea, I recognized that the EF-S series of lenses are newer, but I kind of doubt its quality over the original EF. (Maybe there is a reason for Canon to make a new mount for quality; however it can also be a reason that Canon makes the EF-S lenses to be cheaper, I don't know...; or even maybe EF is better for full frame, while EF-S is designed for the APS-C size...).

If you say Canon said the 17-85 is better than 28-135, then I'm assured to get the 17-85. Maybe later I'll get the 75-300 or wait a year or two to save up $$ for a 70-200 f/4L IS.

I probably won't be able to get my hands on a 5D or 1D, since i'm only an amateur photog, so EF-S lenses wouldn't bother me.

Yea, seems that these two lenses are suitable enough for landscape and portrait. If I need to shoot at a friend's wedding, then I'll need to get a faster lens from rental. Otherwise, at the moment, I don't have other shooting purposes.

Thanks again.

bravo usnameless, those links were great
thanks a lot