17-85 or the 28-135???

[Nightsblood]

Im looking to pick up a Canon 20D or 30D with one of the upgraded kit lenses that come with them. Just to kinda get started. The two kit lenses that are showing up in the aftermerket scene are the Canon 28-135 and the 17-85. Ive read the reviews and they both have their ups and downs.

Im mainly interested in shooting landscapes, low light stuff and some portrait. Which of these lenses would better suit my needs?

 

[|)\/8]

It all depends on which you think you need more, a little wider angle lens (17-85) or one with more zoom (28-135). I personally have the 28-135 and it makes a decent "walk around" lens, but there are times I wish I had a wider angle.

 

[Keith Gebhardt]

I agree with everything DV8 said avobe ^, but ill ad. an f/3.5 lense is an alright lens for low light situations. if you automatically know your going to be in alot of low light. ONLY BUY THE CAMERA BODY, not the lense kit. save that extra money and buy a lower f/2.8, or better yet f./2.4 lense with the camera and many companies will give you $ off as a package deal. Just be prepared to pay alot more for the diffrence in f/#. For example f/2.8 might be $1500, a f/2.4 might be $6000

 

[Nightsblood]

I appreciate the advice but, there is no way that Im paying that much for a lense at this stage.LOL Im just getting my feet wet.

 

[bjrouse]

Totally agree with Keith, Just buy the body and pay a little bit extra and get decent glass. You will be far better off in the long run.
Photography is not a cheap hobby or profession

 

[Keith Gebhardt]

i personally would go with a cheaper camera then. maybe the Canon EOS REBEL XTi for about $500, then buy the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM Lense. which is $1099.00 im sure you can get that as a package for about $1400 or cheaper.