15-85mm or not?

I want to upgrade my kit 18-55mm IS lens (for Canon Kiss X4) and I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85mm IS USM. This is for my all-around lens. I realize no lens is a perfect all-around so I'm looking for the best for what I need. Reasons:

• The focus range seems the best for what I want from lenses I can consider, which is photos of musical instruments, parts, concerts, random indoor and outdoor, etc.
• The quality of the photos (comparisons on The-Digital-Picutre) seems pretty close to Canon's better lenses like the 17-55mm at a lower price. Quality seems significantly better than their 17-85mm and other "basic" lenses.
• Some suggested faster lens or a bigger zoom for all-around. I plan on getting a 100mm prime/macro at some point so it can cover that and maybe also a faster prime lens. This zoom and IQ is more important.

My reservation is I read this lens is over priced and I guess in a way it is. This is the most expensive lens I'm considering. Its IQ seems better than all others I'm considering (Canon, Sigma and Tamron options) so I think it's worth it...? I won't spend more for the L lenses or 17-55mm lens. Maybe I'm wrong that the 15-85mm gives me a real IQ and quality advantage over Sigma's and Tamron's I've looked at which are significantly cheaper.

Thank you

I own this lens and I think its great. I wish it's constant 2.8 thou like the 17-55 but oh well you can't have it all

Others will tell you to get the sigma or tarmon equivalent but i always prefer getting canon lens and that's just me.

I have the same question. Considering its high price, I´m also looking at used L-lenses in apropriate length. I have a 70-200 L F4 and it´s so much better than my 18-135 kit lens in all respects. Problem is that there are no L lenses available in the same zoom range as the 15-85m. 15mm is very attractive and could (almost) be covered by the 16-35L. But then I need a 24-105L also! I could live with that but I could never afford both those two. So, remains 15-85. Just a bit worried about its beeing slow.

I have the 15-85mm, and love this lens. It's my walk around lens for both my Canon 7D and my 350D bodies.

The 15-85mm has a very useful zoom range, is sharp at all focal length & aperture combinations (particularly good wide open, which is important imho). Build quality is above the average 'gold ring' consumer lenses (eg 28-135mm, 17-85mm, etc). The 15-85mm's USM focus and 4-stop IS top it off well for a fantastic lens.

I have a number of other lenses, including a good copy of the 28-135mm USM IS, 100mm f2.8 USM macro, 70-300mmL USM IS, 50mm f1.8 II, Sigma 10-20mm HSM and Canon 100-300mm USM.

The colour accuracy is great and it's very flare resistant and I don't notice vignetting too much. My 2 lens combination is the 15-85mm with my 70-300mm L USM IS. Sure, I'd like these 2 lenses to be f2.8 (or even faster glass) - but for the convenience, weight and practicality, the 15-85mm makes a great 'go to lens'.

Hope my perspective and information helps.

Paul

It's true that the 15-85mm is pretty expensive, but there's nothing else for crop bodies with a similar range. The extra few mm at the wide end are really useful, I upgraded from the 18-55mm IS kit lens, not so much for the improved IQ, but for the range.

You might be able to get a 15-85mm "white-box" from a Canon dealer, where it's been split from a kit. I got mine that way and it saved me around 20%

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed

The second generation 15-55 lens you have (the IS version) is actually not a bad lens. I know that a lot of people want to "upgrade" this lens, but it's actually optically pretty good. And while the 15-85 is a superior lens, you're really only to see an optical difference in certain circumstances where you're viewing at 100% (or greater!). You will, on the other hand, see a more tangible difference in AF speed and, naturally, focal range. In other words, upgrade if you want, but don't do it for optical quality reasons.

For that matter, the 17-85 is NOT the bad lens it has been maligned to be. Again, most of the issues with it are at the pixel-peeping level. There is also distortion at the widest end, and it's prone to a little bit more CA under certain circumstances than the very best glass. But for all but the most critical applications, it's a terrific lens, and many of its issues are easily addressable to some extent in Photoshop. I own some pretty good L glass, but don't hesitate to rely on the 17-85 when I need to travel light and versatile. (When size/weight doesn't matter, I don't even use crop cameras anyway, which this lens is not even compatible with.)

For optical quality, any true "upgrade" is going to be L glass. The 24-70 or 24-105 L, as far as mid-range zooms go. And even then, the benefits skew more towards other areas than simply optical quality, such as better AF, more solid construction, and a constant brighter aperture. But you'll pay, too. Even a 24-105 is going to cost MANY times more than a kit lens.

No question, the best VALUE for you out there in the Canon lineup is the 17-85. I'd take it over the kit lens any day, and it can be had for half the price of the 15-85. Sure, if I could get the 15-85 for the same price, I'd take it, but that's not going to happen. Are the advantages of the 15-85 worth that much money for YOU? That's for you to decide.

clarnibass said:

I want to upgrade my kit 18-55mm IS lens (for Canon Kiss X4) and I'm leaning towards the Canon 15-85mm IS USM. This is for my all-around lens. I realize no lens is a perfect all-around so I'm looking for the best for what I need. Reasons:

• The focus range seems the best for what I want from lenses I can consider, which is photos of musical instruments, parts, concerts, random indoor and outdoor, etc.
• The quality of the photos (comparisons on The-Digital-Picutre) seems pretty close to Canon's better lenses like the 17-55mm at a lower price. Quality seems significantly better than their 17-85mm and other "basic" lenses.
• Some suggested faster lens or a bigger zoom for all-around. I plan on getting a 100mm prime/macro at some point so it can cover that and maybe also a faster prime lens. This zoom and IQ is more important.

My reservation is I read this lens is over priced and I guess in a way it is. This is the most expensive lens I'm considering. Its IQ seems better than all others I'm considering (Canon, Sigma and Tamron options) so I think it's worth it...? I won't spend more for the L lenses or 17-55mm lens. Maybe I'm wrong that the 15-85mm gives me a real IQ and quality advantage over Sigma's and Tamron's I've looked at which are significantly cheaper.

Thank you

Click to expand...

Thanks everyone. I definitely decided to stick to a Canon lens (not Sigma or Tamron) for various reasons, some of which are specific to here.

I don't want to spend more than the 15-85mm, so the L lenses are not an option. As far as I can tell, my kit 18-55mm lens is not the II model. At least I can't find that written anywhere on the lens. I don't know if the II is better or not. Anyway the IS is important and the USM is too since I'll take photos in quiet places where noise is an issue (I could get everything ready, then shoot at a critical moment when the shutter noise is - hopefuly - not a big deal).

So it is basically the 15-85mm vs. the 17-85mm. I understand the differences are supposedly small in terms of IQ. The slightly bigger aperture and wider focus are borderline worth it to me to justify the higher price. However comparisons of these two lenses I found show a very significant improvement in IQ with the 15-85mm lens. The difference I saw definitely justifies the higher price for me, but I don't know if I will notice the same difference when I use them. So I guess I'll just have to think about it. FWIW prices here are significantly more than Amazon/USA prices, the 15-85 is about x1.45 more expensive than the 17-85.

Thanks again

The 18-55 IS II is the same optically as the original, but some pennies have been squeezed out of the production costs. If you have version I, stay with it.

For me the big benefit of the 15-85 is the extra 3mm at the wide end; 24mm equivalency is far wider than the 18's 29mm equivalency.

What I really would like is for someone to offer a 12-60 f2.0 IS.

The Sigma 17-70 non-OS version (fro about $400) is about as good as the Canon 15-85. If you are outside you probably don't need stabilization. The stabilized version of the Sigma is no quite as good and over $500 so .

If you don't have need to shoot wide open many cheaper lenses have great quality.

Too many photographers are programmed to look for the defects in lenses rather than all the good ranges. Some lenses are terrible wide open at some focal length but fantastic stopped down just two stops.

slrgear.com has nice test data that shows this.
--
Vince

clarnibass said:

My reservation is I read this lens is over priced and I guess in a way it is. This is the most expensive lens I'm considering. Its IQ seems better than all others I'm considering (Canon, Sigma and Tamron options) so I think it's worth it...? I won't spend more for the L lenses or 17-55mm lens. Maybe I'm wrong that the 15-85mm gives me a real IQ and quality advantage over Sigma's and Tamron's I've looked at which are significantly cheaper.

Click to expand...

IMO, the 15-85's performance puts it in the same league as much more expensive lenses, such as the ef-s 17-55, ef 24-70L and ef 24-105L. When compared against prices of theses lenses, the price of the 15-85 seems pretty reasonable to me.

As compared to the ef-s 17-85, the 15-85 has better IQ, better IS and better build quality. And it is 2mm wider, which is more significant than you might thiin,

Thanks everyone. Even the slrgear review says the 15-85mm is sharper. I don't mind the slightly smaller aperture, I'll probably get a decent fast prime at some point. For various reasons (some specific to my area) I'm going with a Canon lens and not Sigma. So I think the 15-85mm is what I'll get.

Thanks again

This has opened up questions for me as well.

I have the IS version of the 18-55, and also the 17-85, both bought with cameras. I have been looking at getting the 15-85, and selling on both of the original lenses to recoup some of the money. The lens will be used on my 60D primarily.

However I am also looking at adding a zoom to my range, probably the 70-200 f4, non-IS version, but should I splash first on a decent walkaround lens, or will the 17-85 be good enough.

Having read this thread, I get the feeling, that for my usage, general kid shots and holiday, with a little trying at being creative, the 17-85 will be good enough.

Decisions, decisions. thanks to OP for more or less the same question as mine.

Gary

I started out with a 17-85IS in 2006. The FL range was perfect for me, but the poor performance at its wide end forced me to upgrade. At the the time of the upgrade, the 17-55 2.8 IS was my only real choice IMHO - the 15-85 was not out yet.

Though the 17-55 is a great lens (almost as good as my 70-200L F4 IS IQ-wise), I miss the range of my old piece of junk. I am pretty sure that I will be selling the 17-55 and getting the 15-85 very shortly. In fact, I held one today at a local brick & mortar.

I should have no problem selling the 17-55, especially the way lens prices are today - ridiculous. If I ask what I bought it for, it will still save some Craigslist or eBay buyer over three hundred bucks!

I believe like me, you will probably like the FL range of the 15-85. After all, you haven't been spoiled by another choice. Good Luck!

I purchased this lens as an upgrade to the kit lens... to reduce lens changes. I do think it is overpriced for an EF-S lens without a hood. However, I think lenses are a significant profit center for camera companies, like ink for your printer. If you get a good copy, it can perform quite well. Unfortunately, I had 2 copies that were decentered at wide angle and also tended to front focus at infinity and wide angle on 2 different bodies. For $800, QC should not be an issue... just my opinion. There really isn't much else to chose from that covers this range so I recommend this lens but as alway, test. You won't be disappointed with a good copy. But, you might be able to pickup a white box 17-85mm for 1/2 the price... a good value and still acceptable without pixel peeping.

Greg

I think he meant the fact that the original kit lens was not very good. Canon redesigned it when pixels hit around 10MP.

gak44 said:

The 18-55 IS II is the same optically as the original, but some pennies have been squeezed out of the production costs. If you have version I, stay with it.

For me the big benefit of the 15-85 is the extra 3mm at the wide end; 24mm equivalency is far wider than the 18's 29mm equivalency.

What I really would like is for someone to offer a 12-60 f2.0 IS.

Click to expand...

If you think you need the extra 3mm at the wide end, I say go for it. I've had over the past few years... 18-55 (non-IS), Sigma 18-50 f2.8, 50 f1.8 II, 85 f1.8, 135 f2L, 200 f2.8L, one of the 75-300 IS lenses (can't remember which), and currently have the 15-85 and 70-200f4lIS. I plan on adding a fast prime for when I need it, but find most of the time I have the 15-85 on my 7d and the tele on my 20D. The 15-85 is a fine lens whose only significant weakness is that it is not 2.8. If you have a wider lens, or want a faster lens and have no desire to own a prime, get the 17-50 f2.8. Otherwise, the 15-85 is a great choice for APS-C. I was VERY happy with the sigma 18-50 2.8 for my style of photography, but found that when I needed a fast lens, 2.8 was not fast enough, and when I started wanting more wide-end reach, the 15-85 was a logical choice (to be joined by a prime at a later time).

I just got one and took it out for the first time today. Great zoom range and it seems very sharp so far. Like 15mm a lot more the 17&18 which all of my standard zooms have been to this point. A few shots from it on a 60D.

Rich Dykmans said:

I just got one and took it out for the first time today. Great zoom range and it seems very sharp so far. Like 15mm a lot more the 17&18 which all of my standard zooms have been to this point. A few shots from it on a 60D.

Click to expand...

Do you have hte 60D peripheral illumination turned on, or did you PP for the vignetting at 15mm? Your 15mm shots look quite good.
--
Rick,

Nasty vignetting in #1. Nice photos otherwise.
--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

That's exactly what I reckon. People tend to think that 17-55 is better mainly because of the constant f2.8. I honestly think that f2.8 isn't that quick anyway for low light situation. Only fast prime can handle it. Therefore 15-85 is a much better choice as a general walkaround as it's both wider and longer, cheaper and has pretty much equal IQ as the 17-55.

Just my 2c.

dougr said:

The 15-85 is a fine lens whose only significant weakness is that it is not 2.8. If you have a wider lens, or want a faster lens and have no desire to own a prime, get the 17-50 f2.8. Otherwise, the 15-85 is a great choice for APS-C. I was VERY happy with the sigma 18-50 2.8 for my style of photography, but found that when I needed a fast lens, 2.8 was not fast enough, and when I started wanting more wide-end reach, the 15-85 was a logical choice (to be joined by a prime at a later time).

Click to expand...