17-55is or 17-40 or 15-85 for 7d

Has anyone compared the image quality of these three lenses on a 7d and if so any comments ?

In this case I'm more concern about overall image quality (not just resolution). Obviously the 17-55 is a bit faster.

I sort of lean towards the 17-55 for the extra speed but the bokeh is not that great and the build quality is said to be the worse of the three but optically ti said is to be ok (good resolution; high contrast but perhaps not best drawing but better than 24-105).

Oh well comments wlecomed.

Been using 17-55 for the first time with the kids over the last week on holidays. I have the 17-85 IS as well and the 17-55 is oustanding in comparison. In my opinion light years ahead, very fast focus, very sharp and the 2.8 is very useful (as is the IS).
My keep rate has increased dramatically.

http://www.photozone.de gives you some info
the 17-55 f2.8 IS is my favourite lens

Jake21 said:

Has anyone compared the image quality of these three lenses on a 7d and if so any comments ?

In this case I'm more concern about overall image quality (not just resolution). Obviously the 17-55 is a bit faster.

I sort of lean towards the 17-55 for the extra speed but the bokeh is not that great and the build quality is said to be the worse of the three but optically ti said is to be ok (good resolution; high contrast but perhaps not best drawing but better than 24-105).

Oh well comments wlecomed.

Click to expand...

Forgot to say - that's on the 7d. And also I must say that AI servo is excellent with the 17-55 - seems to stay locked on w
ith ease.

ohyva said:

http://www.photozone.de gives you some info
the 17-55 f2.8 IS is my favourite lens

Click to expand...

Mine too! Worth the money.

For walkaround I'll take without question the 15-85. Foe indoors I prefer the faster 17-55.

Yehuda

Jake21 said:

Has anyone compared the image quality of these three lenses on a 7d and if so any comments ?

In this case I'm more concern about overall image quality (not just resolution). Obviously the 17-55 is a bit faster.

I sort of lean towards the 17-55 for the extra speed but the bokeh is not that great and the build quality is said to be the worse of the three but optically ti said is to be ok (good resolution; high contrast but perhaps not best drawing but better than 24-105).

Oh well comments wlecomed.

Click to expand...

People seem to love the 17-55.

Really, it's simple. Optical quality between the 17-55 an 15-85 is very close.

You want more speed, get the 17-55. You want more range, get the 15-85.

Hard to come up with an argument for the 17-40.

I have the first two, I find the quality and sharpness of the 17-55 equals or betters the 17-40.

only difference is a bit more weight, $$ and it doesn't have the weather sealing.

I have the 15-85 for my 7D and I will say this, it is tack sharp, I love this lens!

I borrowed a friends 17-55 2.8, very nice lens and very sharp. I would say the IQ is comparable to the 15-85.

Too me, you need to ask yourself which you need more, range or 2.8 and consider the $$$ difference!

I wish the 15-85 was faster but the noise performance of the 7D helps out here when in low light.

-Maw

I own both as well and agree with Yehuda. Indoors in low light, the wider apertures of the 17-55 allow shots I would otherwise not get. Outdoors, the 15-85 has the better zoom range and wide apetures are not as critical. If you want both a flexible zoom range and good low light capability, think about the 15-85 and the venerable 50mm 1.8 prime. The 50mm is cheap and plasticky, but as several reviewers have noted, Canon has made an awful lot of them and it is a very good lens for the price. The combo will cost you less than the 17-55.

Yehuda Katz said:

For walkaround I'll take without question the 15-85. Foe indoors I prefer the faster 17-55.

Yehuda

Click to expand...

But what if you had to choose only one

And what about the 24-105? More reach but limited on the wide end. Constant f/4 aperture is nice. L build quality. Ability to use on FF in needed. Probably better resale.

When I mentioned the 24-105 I wasn't thinking of using it on the 7D; rather comparing the lens imaging ability (think 24-105 on 5d).

I think I'll only go with one; though it does beg the question what to use indoors (and one of the things i've been considering). My old system was aria with 28/50/85/35-70 so I've been looking for a digital solution that would give me the drawing of my old system. Naturally if I could obtain the same weight it would be a big plus. I know about the xti et all but I can't manual focus with them; when I played with the 7d in a shop it was not so bad for manual focus...

Oh well. I guess I should not consider the 17-40 so much and try to pick between the 15-85 and 17-55.

Jake21 said:

Has anyone compared the image quality of these three lenses on a 7d and if so any comments ?

Click to expand...

Yes, The Digital Image, here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2.8-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

(Oops! That review doesn't include the 15-85 in the comparison, but he reviews the 15-85 elsewhere on the site.)

He demonstrates (with examples) that the 17-55 is absolutely sharper than the 17-40L or the 16-35L on a crop camera.

Jake21 said:

In this case I'm more concern about overall image quality (not just resolution). Obviously the 17-55 is a bit faster.

Click to expand...

I've had my 17-55 for a couple of years now, and while I find the zoom range of the 15-85 attractive, no way I'd give up the speed of the 17-55. If I ever get a 15-85, it will be in addition to the 17-55. Which, given my finances, isn't very likely.

Jake21 said:

I sort of lean towards the 17-55 for the extra speed but the bokeh is not that great and the build quality is said to be the worse of the three but optically ti said is to be ok (good resolution; high contrast but perhaps not best drawing but better than 24-105).

Click to expand...

I've never seen anyone refer to the 17-55 build quality as "worse" -- not metal barrels, sure, but it's not exactly flimsy. I have no problem with its build Q, but then I'm not a war correspondent...

In any case, either the 17-55 or the 15-85 is a better choice for an aps-c camera than the 17-40. And if you're not bothered by the speed limitations of the 15-85, it's not a bad buy, considering its high IQ.
--



50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22

Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 24 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8

Jake21 said:

when I played with the 7d in a shop it was not so bad for manual focus...

Click to expand...

If you want to focus manually, you should consider a 50D or 40D. Both have user-interchangeable focus screens, which means you could get a Katzeye screen (which has the old-fashioned split-screen surrounded by microprism grid). Having used such screens for a several decades to manually focus, I can tell you, it's the only way to manually focus. Focus is found instantaneously, and is never off by even a little. Back in the day of manual focus, there was no such thing as a "keeper rate" based on how many shots were in focus -- they all were!
--



50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22

Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 24 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8

I have a 7D and a 17-40L, and it's a great lens. Focus is fast and accurate, build quality is great, and it just fits with the camera. It's not as long as the other lenses, but whether you need the extra reach is up to you.

Jake21 said:

Has anyone compared the image quality of these three lenses on a 7d and if so any comments ?

In this case I'm more concern about overall image quality (not just resolution). Obviously the 17-55 is a bit faster.

I sort of lean towards the 17-55 for the extra speed but the bokeh is not that great and the build quality is said to be the worse of the three but optically ti said is to be ok (good resolution; high contrast but perhaps not best drawing but better than 24-105).

Oh well comments wlecomed.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone who has ever held the 17-55 could refer to the build quality as "worse." Worse? It's not quite "L" but it's very sturdy.
--
Joe Hawblitzel

I have owned all three and now have the 15-85 for my 7D and use a 24-105 on my 5D II as walk around lenses. I didn't care for the 17-40 (limited range, no IS with f4) on crop and I don't need this wide on full frame, so it was sold.

I sold my 17-55 f2.8 IS, when I bought a 5D II. It was a very good lens, but the build quality is only decent, not great. It performs well in indoor situations, but you will still need a flash. For studio use, I found the range at 55mm a bit limiting and the flare could be an issue when doing white backgrounds.

Later bought a 7D and a 15-85 as a second body. Really happy with this combo, and the lens is a really nice fit as far as quality goes with the 7D. The 15-85 is almost L like in build, IQ is excellent, but slower aperture. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, but it simply boils down to more range or faster aperture with a few trade offs regarding build, flare, etc.

My take, get the 15-85 to start which covers a nice range from everything to landscape to portraits. Then add a fast prime for faster aperture.

Yea. I might still consider the 40D. For a few minutes (shop comparing) of usage I've never liked the 40D for some reason but the 7D seems fairly impressive (I normally lean towards smaller camera such as rebel size - think aria, om and such). I might still consider the 40d it is also less expensive and has more than enough pixels. The 50d i don't like at all. The 7d (in the store with 28-135 kit lens) did seem very easy to manual focus; the image seemed to just snap into focus even with the slower aperture of the 28-135. I'm not very happy at all with the weight of the camera (wished the xti or t1 had a better (not larger) viewfinder that was oriented towards manual focus.

Based on others comment I'm leanings towards the 15-85. I'll probably obtain something else for speed/port (perhaps the voiglander 58f1.4 when it comes out in canon mount; or maybe the 40f2 or my old contax 50f1.4 with adapter). The 15-85 is meant as a walk around lens outside; and while the 17-55 is very tempting it doesn't seem quite fast enough to replace a fast prime. Anyways that's my thinking as of this minute. Not 100% settled on the camera; if the rebels (been playing with an xti which I will pass on to my sister who is camera-less) responded better to manual focus (indicators in view finder or screen) I'd probably just keep that. I really do prefer the smaller camera and it has plenty of pixels.

Wayndom said:

Jake21 said:

when I played with the 7d in a shop it was not so bad for manual focus...

Click to expand...

If you want to focus manually, you should consider a 50D or 40D. Both have user-interchangeable focus screens, which means you could get a Katzeye screen (which has the old-fashioned split-screen surrounded by microprism grid). Having used such screens for a several decades to manually focus, I can tell you, it's the only way to manually focus. Focus is found instantaneously, and is never off by even a little. Back in the day of manual focus, there was no such thing as a "keeper rate" based on how many shots were in focus -- they all were!
--



50D, XT/350D, EF-S 17-55, EF-S 10-22

Equipment Emeritus: First-generation F-1, FD 24 2.8, FD 35 f2, FD 50 1.4, FD 85 1.8

Click to expand...

jrscls --

Can you comment on the 7d with 15-85 vs 5d and 24-105 ? I would think you prefer the 5d combo but perhaps the 24-105 is a bit weaker than the 15-85 (optically). Also have you noticed a difference in focus accuracy between the two cameras (obviously the 7d is faster/more repsonive but thati s not relevant to me; accuracy is everything.

jrscls

jrscls said:

I have owned all three and now have the 15-85 for my 7D and use a 24-105 on my 5D II as walk around lenses. I didn't care for the 17-40 (limited range, no IS with f4) on crop and I don't need this wide on full frame, so it was sold.

I sold my 17-55 f2.8 IS, when I bought a 5D II. It was a very good lens, but the build quality is only decent, not great. It performs well in indoor situations, but you will still need a flash. For studio use, I found the range at 55mm a bit limiting and the flare could be an issue when doing white backgrounds.

Later bought a 7D and a 15-85 as a second body. Really happy with this combo, and the lens is a really nice fit as far as quality goes with the 7D. The 15-85 is almost L like in build, IQ is excellent, but slower aperture. I don't think you can go wrong with either lens, but it simply boils down to more range or faster aperture with a few trade offs regarding build, flare, etc.

My take, get the 15-85 to start which covers a nice range from everything to landscape to portraits. Then add a fast prime for faster aperture.

Click to expand...

We recently got the 7D and 15-85 (sold 2 40D bodies), and I like the combo. Pairs up great with the 5D II and my other lenses (70-200 L, 100L, 35 L). The 5D II and 24-105 would be my choice over the 7D as the IQ is just a bit better on full frame. However, for sports, the 7D would run circles around the 5D II.

So, trying to answer your question, I prefer the 5D II for portraits and the 7D for sports. The 24-105 also performed great on the 7D, but I wanted to have a dedicated stay on the camera lens for the 7D for my wife and daughter to shoot with.