Reading mode: Light Dark

New VS Old - 15-85, 17-70, 17-55

Go to last post
T

talberin

Leading Member
Messages
635
Reaction score
1
Location
IL
Hello,

I'm looking for a possible upgrade to my 17-70 range. The options mentioned are considered "best" at that range:

1. 15-85 New Canon Lense
2. 17-70 Sigma Affordable Lense
3. 17-55 Stated to be the best in line

Which would you prefer and why,
If possible please include photos to complement your theory.

Thanks.
 
talberin said:
1. 15-85 New Canon Lens
Click to expand...
Should be a good lens and is USM (abt $800 at Amazon, I think); I see it as the replacement for the Canon 17-85IS but expect it to be better (and it's certainly wider on the wide). Of the three, this would be the best walkaround lens, and I expect it to better than my Canon 18-200IS (which is not USM).
talberin said:
2. 17-70 Sigma Affordable Lens
Click to expand...
I don't know this lens; I've had bad experiences with other Sigma lenses but this one could be fine.
talberin said:
3. 17-55 Stated to be the best in line
Click to expand...
This is one of the best Canon lenses -- and probably the best EF-s lens. Unlike the 15-85 it is f/2.8 throughout its range. I have this lens and it's one of my favorites.

--

Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D, 20D; G9, SD700IS; Panasonic LX3, ZS3/TZ7; Fuji F31fd.
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
I have a question about your 17-55 lens. Do you feel you can drop the 50mm 1.8 from your bag when doing portraits with this lens. Is it really sharp wide open for portrait shots when pixel peeping?

Thanks.
 
talberin said:
I have a question about your 17-55 lens. Do you feel you can drop the 50mm 1.8 from your bag when doing portraits with this lens.
Click to expand...
Yes .. in fact I gave my 50 mm f/1.8 lens to my son after I bought the 17-55 (though I may replace it eventually due to the f/1.8 and it being so inexpensive and easy to tote).

--

Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D, 20D; G9, SD700IS; Panasonic LX3, ZS3/TZ7; Fuji F31fd.
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
I have the 17-55f2.8IS and the 50f1.8. The 50 does not get used much.

The 50 is a bit soft at 1.8, and becomes sharp @ about 2.8. The 17-55 is sharp wide open at 2.8, not too far behind the 50 @ 2.8, plus it has IS, FTM ring USM, and zoom.

If you want to be discrete or pack light, the drawbacks are size, weight. Price is something to consider also.
 
Hi -

I can comment only upon the EF-S 17-55mm which I purchased this summer. It is simply awesome and worth every penny. If it didn't have that "S", it would be an "L".

Libby
 
Since I own the Sigma 17-70 and the 17-55 and formerly the Canon 17-85 use them with a 40d. Id like to share some thoughts:

Sigma feels handy and solid but it tends to produce a slight yellow cast in combination with canon Cameras. But this is no big problem. Focus is normaly good, but this changes when you attach canon flashes with focus help light. Than some qiute severe misfocuses can occour.

Canon 17-55 is a bit heavy and big, but it focuses exact quick and smooth. Also the IS is areal benefit. Colour also schines. Normaly it should be sharper than the sigma but mine isnt. Maby I havnt got the best copy. A prime lens like my 85 1.8 is faaar better.

Formerly I used the Canon 17-85. This lens has a good range and is small an light. but it suffers from severe chromatic aberation on the wide end. Longer focal legth a superb with good colour.

My recomendation for every day use: NEW CANON 15-85 EFS: Why? Wider rage and Its MTF curves indicate that it is better than the 17-85 on the wide end an has the same small package. This less was Applied with further ED and Apochomatik Elemends to overcom 17-85 shortcommings. Also the zoom ring is smoother to rotate.
--
allways look on the bright side of live!
 
Franz Weber said:
Since I own the Sigma 17-70 and the 17-55 and formerly the Canon 17-85 use them with a 40d. Id like to share some thoughts:

Sigma feels handy and solid but it tends to produce a slight yellow cast in combination with canon Cameras. But this is no big problem. Focus is normaly good, but this changes when you attach canon flashes with focus help light. Than some qiute severe misfocuses can occour.

Canon 17-55 is a bit heavy and big, but it focuses exact quick and smooth. Also the IS is areal benefit. Colour also schines. Normaly it should be sharper than the sigma but mine isnt. Maby I havnt got the best copy. A prime lens like my 85 1.8 is faaar better.

Formerly I used the Canon 17-85. This lens has a good range and is small an light. but it suffers from severe chromatic aberation on the wide end. Longer focal legth a superb with good colour.

My recomendation for every day use: NEW CANON 15-85 EFS: Why? Wider rage and Its MTF curves indicate that it is better than the 17-85 on the wide end an has the same small package. This less was Applied with further ED and Apochomatik Elemends to overcom 17-85 shortcommings. Also the zoom ring is smoother to rotate.
--
allways look on the bright side of live!
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply.

I too own the Sigma 17-70 and I find it pretty soft anyway you use it. Maybe an issue with my camera (350d, considering saying bye bye to it soon).

I was sure that the dynamic range of the 17-55 would completely throw the other lenses away, but from what you are saying, the most affordable lens in its class does the same... Really strange.

The new lense has got some character because of its range. but the F range of the glass is "so so" and quality wise I dont think we can expect much from it, but then, I might be wrong.

P.S: I was actually thinking of exchanging my 17-70 with a 17-55. But will probably use the cash for a new body. Or I should go in a different direction?
 
The 17-55IS is obviously the most desirable lens in this class, as it has USM, IS, f/2.8 aperture and is usually considered the sharpest, so if you don't mind spending the money, it's the one to go for.

At less than half the price, the Sigma 17-70, Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 16-50 are all very good options. None have IS or USM, but all of them are very sharp though most of their ranges and don't have too many weakneses. I have the Sigma and I love it, especially since I got my 40D and then my 7D, as AF was not very reliable with my Rebel XT. I thought the lens was a bit soft, but it performs much better on the newer bodies.
--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/
 
Oops, no editing option anymore :)

As for the 17-85; I don't have too much direct experience with it, but it seems decent, if overpriced and somewhat slow. It has a lot of distortion at 17mm and people say it has issues with CA as well. The new 15-85 should be better, based on the how much better the new 18-55 is and the fact that it has a UD element in it, but no one will know until it's actually in people's hands. The extra range is nice too, but once again, it's a bit pricey.
--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/
 
Redteg94 said:
As for the 17-85; I don't have too much direct experience with it, but it seems decent, if overpriced and somewhat slow. It has a lot of distortion at 17mm and people say it has issues with CA as well. The new 15-85 should be better, based on the how much better the new 18-55 is and the fact that it has a UD element in it, but no one will know until it's actually in people's hands. The extra range is nice too, but once again, it's a bit pricey.
Click to expand...
I have the 17-85IS and two of the 18-200IS (we use two bodies at once when we travel).

The 17-85IS is USM and focuses fast. But I prefer IQ (and range) with both 18-200s, particularly re CA. I expect the 15-85IS USM to be better in IQ than either the 17-85 or 18-200 -- partly based on the price. But who knows until we see some samples or a lab test.

--

Phil .. Canon EOS 7D, 40D, 20D; G9, SD700IS; Panasonic LX3, ZS3/TZ7; Fuji F31fd.
http://www.pbase.com/phil_wheeler
http://philwheeler.net
 
Thanks a lot for the in depth reply. I too have a 350D with the 17-70 and find it very soft and unclear. I always thought it was the lens untill I read your oppinion.

I saw the sharpness of the 17-55 and absolutely loved it. Question is whether it will keep it on such an old body...
 
No Edditing :)

Did you feel notisable difference in Image Quality with the Sigma when moving from a 40D to a 7D?
 
The 17-55 is great.
My copy is actually sharper and has better contrast than my 50mm 1.8 !
And as you can see on my test pic, better at f2.8 than the 18-55 at f5!

Actually, the 17-55 is the only thing stopping me from getting a FF camera.

100% crops:



But f2.8 can never equal f1.8 for portraits so........
talberin said:
I have a question about your 17-55 lens. Do you feel you can drop the 50mm 1.8 from your bag when doing portraits with this lens. Is it really sharp wide open for portrait shots when pixel peeping?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
--
.
 
Yes, you are right the 17-55 is unique in some aspects. 2.8 is brighter: looking thru the viewfinder becomes brighter, helps when focusing, because more light hits the autofocussystem, further 2.8 delievers more out of focus blur.

But when it comes to sharpness and color reproduction I think it is better to try a fixed focal lens like the mentioned 85 1.8. You will be amazed by the image quality even the 17-55 cant keep up. Even my sister notice this difference!

The new 15-85 cost more than 17-85 and has added glas elements to enhance image quality so I guess it shoul be better qulity wise. I had the chance to play with it at the Berlin IFA exhibition. It balances better on a small body than the 17-55 and has slightly better build qulity than both 17-85 and 17-55.
--
allways look on the bright side of live!
 
Hi All,

I moved from the 17-70mm Sigma, which was a step up from my kit lens on the 350D. Next stop was the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 when I got the 40D, and a far better lens. Later on when I wanted IS for very low light/hand-held work (caves etc), I took the plunge on the 17-55 F2.8 IS Canon and was simply blown away.

I did a double-blind test with my missus shooting at the underwater aquarium, swapping lenses on her several times in the low light. Although they were both F2.8, tyhe Canon readily still obtained focus where the Sigma faltered, the colours were more vibrant (that one I was the biggest cynic of, until we checked the results. Obviously lens coating play a bigger part than I realised).

I sold the 18-50mm Sigma, gave my Son the 17-70 for the 350D he inherited, and never missed them. Once you touch the 17-55mm Canon under trying conditions, you quickly realise what you pay for. In good light, the difference might not be obvious, but as the light fades, it is stellar! This is one lens you just won't ever part with while you have a crop body.
--
The Aussie Viking
 
Thanks.
How would you rate the lenses you mensioned, quality, sharpness and color wise?
 
This has already been mentioned by somebody else.

If you want optical quality pretty close to that of the Canon 17-55 f2.8 at half the price, go for the Tamron 17-50 f2.8. The current version doesn't have image stabilisation but a new version with IS is due to be released shortly (currently only available in Nikon mount).
--
Chris R
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top