Canon 15-85 vs 17-55...my view

Started Jan 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
yokochanie
Regular MemberPosts: 108
Like?
FAO Karl Summers
In reply to Karl Summers, Jan 10, 2013

If landscape is the main photography then yes go for the 15-85. When the IS has settled the results are fantastic, equal to the 70-200. The extra two mm at the front make a massive difference for landscape or tight places and the extra reach at the end is very helpful.

Once I was giving the IS time to settle down then I was getting an excellent keeper rate, softness wasn't even there then.

My review is simply stating my experiences, and since the lens did go back to Canon and they did adjustments then I have to feel it's not so much a bad lens, more of how long it takes the IS to settle, and that ralates as much to my style of taking pictures as the lens itself, so please don't think I am knocking the lens down. It is brilliant, but I found for whatever reason I did not get consistently in results until I pause between first and second press.

I have trawled through a lot on the internet last year and while everyone states the 15-85 is razor sharp, quite a few have complained it can be inconsistent and it can be soft on the same day it is sharp.

My post is merely to say how to avoid that if you are experiencing that, ie, pause between first and second press; and to give a comparison of the two lens and for me the selling point is no pause needed for the 17-55, while the reach which I thought I would miss I didn't, and the extra two mm at the front was taken up by the excellent 10-22.

But for landscape, no contest, the 15-85 wins hands down.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow