Have the 17-55, make sense to buy the 15-85 also?

Long answer:

The 15-85 is sometimes critizised for it's barrel distortion at the short end, vignetting and rather heavy CA. All three are easily corrected in DPP if you shoot raw.

The lens is really sharp, and IQ is generally much, much better than the 17-85, which had a somewhat sombre reputation. Both the extra 2 mm at the wide end and the extra reach makes it a very versatile lens.

The other posters' pictures are impressive and should entice you to buy. I would keep the 17-55 - at least until you know if you use both.
--
Less is more

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

This is quoted from canon literature - I added the bold

AF System Sensitivity

All EOS cameras have focus points that can autofocus lenses with a maximum aperture of f/5.6 or faster. Some camera models have additional sensors that provide extra high-precision AF capability for lenses with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or faster. All current EOS cameras also have “cross-type” AF sensors at the center point. Cross- type AF sensors are able to read subject detail regardless of whether it's essentially horizontal or vertical in the scene. Many (EOS 50D, 60D, 7D and so on) have cross-type sensors at all locations—a noteworthy benefit.

Although the viewfinder doesn’t indicate what types of sensors your camera has, it does indicate the number of AF points available and where they’re located. Many EOS cameras have a 9-point array. Advanced models such as the EOS 7D have 19 points. Professional models such as the EOS-1D and EOS-1Ds use a 45-point array with extremely dense AF point coverage.

I think loafer's statement was a bit misleading, though there is a kernel of truth there. f/2.8 lenses allow the camera body to potentially achieve focus in more challenging conditions. The 60D center focus point, for example, acts as a dual cross type (+ overlaid with x) with lenses of f/2.8 and faster. The 5D MkII's center AF point has additional assist points that are all active at f/2.8, but not all are active at smaller apertures.

Asad

Mustafa said:

loafer said:

2.8 lenses have more accurate focus.

Click to expand...

What is your source for this statement?

Click to expand...

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

+1

35L for low light interiors, and 15-85 as my walk around, that's the approach I took, and I've been very happy with this combo.

Having read his evidence, I am taking it as a lazy misinterpretation rather than merely misleading.

asad137 said:

I think loafer's statement was a bit misleading, though there is a kernel of truth there. f/2.8 lenses allow the camera body to potentially achieve focus in more challenging conditions. The 60D center focus point, for example, acts as a dual cross type (+ overlaid with x) with lenses of f/2.8 and faster. The 5D MkII's center AF point has additional assist points that are all active at f/2.8, but not all are active at smaller apertures.

Asad

Mustafa said:

loafer said:

2.8 lenses have more accurate focus.

Click to expand...

What is your source for this statement?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

These are very nice and show us what the 35L can do on that sensor. You may have had a focus nit on the first one close up at f1.4, but when you backed up on a later pic you showed us sharp f1.4 a bit further away from the subject, as measured by sharpness of the eyes

The 35 will be even more excellent on your 5d3 for environmental portraits without flash F1.4 - F2 - it will be even sharper. I have 5dc and 60d also. The FF handles these primes a bit better for sharpness f1.2- f2. Though I have the 50 f1.4, the 35 L will be my next lens.

the 60d has similar sensor as 7d, and what I see is that I want to keep my iso to iso100-400 to keep the noise low. I see this in your iso800 shots a bit and think you could have probably lowered the ss a bit and gotten iso400 for less noise. Your 5d3 will definitely handle iso800 and 1600 and even 3200 for these shots.

what I'm doing with my 60d, is beginning to deploy subtle off camera flash and staying iso 100 -400 indoors. Radio popper jr's RF tech -- but I may go to odins but in many cases the 60d OCF internal IR feature works in the event and family environments I work - bouncing off back and side walls to create the window

What you've shown is that F2 (FF equivalent of F2.8) with this 35L blurs the backdrop very well on 7d/60d technology and is sharp for the eyes and has low noise at iso400 and will create perfect shots for prints!

Thanks again for showing what the 35L looks like on 7d/60d -- it looks really good -- I can't get that good on my 50 f1.4 so 35L looks like it is worth it for the f1.4 -f1.8 on FF (iso 800 - iso3200) and F2 on crop (iso400)

bhollis said:

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

+1

35L for low light interiors, and 15-85 as my walk around, that's the approach I took, and I've been very happy with this combo.

Click to expand...

In the test referenced, the 17-55 shows to be quite sharper with more contrast. At least it surely looks that way on my calibrated monitor.
(I find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast to the very good 24-105L.)

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

no it's not, I have a 24 inch e-IPS

put both lenses on the widest end and compare. At f2.8, and 17 mm the 17-55 is soft in the middle and corners. Put the 17-55 on F4 at 17 mm and compare with the 15-85 at 15 mm at F4 -- the 15-85 beats the 17-55 at this setting.

Then compare 35 mm and 55 mm at f5.6 on both. This is where they even out.

The 17-55 does have f2.8 but I'd rather have a 35 L at F1.4- F2.8. I'd rather use the 15-85 with better 4 stop IS, better range, stopped down for scapes and group shots any day

Tom Melanson said:

In the test referenced, the 17-55 shows to be quite sharper with more contrast. At least it surely looks that way on my calibrated monitor.
(I find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast to the very good 24-105L.)

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

Click to expand...

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

top tier image quality and it handles flare in the sun...

MAC said:

put both lenses on the widest end and compare. At f2.8, and 17 mm the 17-55 is soft in the middle and corners. Put the 17-55 on F4 at 17 mm and compare with the 15-85 at 15 mm at F4 -- the 15-85 beats the 17-55 at this setting.

Then compare 35 mm and 55 mm at f5.6 on both. This is where they even out.

The 17-55 does have f2.8 but I'd rather have a 35 L at F1.4- F2.8. I'd rather use the 15-85 with better 4 stop IS, better range, stopped down for scapes and group shots any day

Tom Melanson said:

In the test referenced, the 17-55 shows to be quite sharper with more contrast. At least it surely looks that way on my calibrated monitor.
(I find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast to the very good 24-105L.)

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Since you already have the 17-55 to cover the wide end, I would consider the 24-105mm f/4 L. Being the 5D kit lens, you can get them for not much more than a new 15-85mm. I don't own one but it sounds like it stack up against the 15-85mm well and give you a longer reach.

Have you considered a second body instead? Put the 17-55 on one and the 70-200 on the other. Redundancy (of bodies) at events and quick on the draw. I use a Kenesis holster belt with those two lenses on a 7D and 50D on the occasions I need flexibility and don't want to swap lenses.

Good luck,
Bob

--
http://www.greatschatz.com

The high precision AF points achieve focus within 1/3 of the depth of focus - they are active only with lenses faster than f/2.8
The normal precision AF points achieve focus within one depth of focus.

The 7D center point is high precision. In fact all the x series, xx series and Rebel series since the 400D have at least one of these.

I just don't see how this is a "lazy interpretation". It's a precise one.

It is a big selling point for using more expensive lenses.

But on the other hand there are also a lot of 7D AF complainers, so maybe you guys are right and I'm wrong.

I can tell you for a fact that with my 50d center point is really much better with fast glass. It can find contrast in horizontals, verticals and diagonals and that means it almost never focuses on the wrong thing.

The only lens it fails with is the 50 1.4 and I think that is because that lens is so soft wide open that the AF system has trouble finding edges to focus on.

If anything, I would get the 18-135mm for those times when you need more range. The difference between a 55mm long end an an 85mm long end is not substantial enough to justify the inferior optical characteristics (and much smaller aperture) of the 15-85 vs. the 17-55m. Personally, I "pair" the 17-55mm with a Tokina 50-135mm f/2.8 (a fine lens though lacking optical stabilization), and also keep the 18-135mm on hand for those situations where I need the wider range of focal lengths but don't have the luxury of carrying/swapping multiple lenses.

"Overall, image quality from this lens is very good(15-85). It is nearly equal to that from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens - an impressive and best-selling lens."

From the below referenced review.

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

top tier image quality and it handles flare in the sun...

MAC said:

put both lenses on the widest end and compare. At f2.8, and 17 mm the 17-55 is soft in the middle and corners. Put the 17-55 on F4 at 17 mm and compare with the 15-85 at 15 mm at F4 -- the 15-85 beats the 17-55 at this setting.

Then compare 35 mm and 55 mm at f5.6 on both. This is where they even out.

The 17-55 does have f2.8 but I'd rather have a 35 L at F1.4- F2.8. I'd rather use the 15-85 with better 4 stop IS, better range, stopped down for scapes and group shots any day

Tom Melanson said:

In the test referenced, the 17-55 shows to be quite sharper with more contrast. At least it surely looks that way on my calibrated monitor.
(I find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast to the very good 24-105L.)

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

If any lens in Canon's lineup is inferior, it's the 18-135.
--
Less is more

I can be selective too from the same review:

"The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens and Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens cleanly win the overall competition. And at equal apertures and focal lengths, these lenses perform very similarly. If a bright light (such as the sun) is in or near the framed image, the 17-55's image quality quickly falls apart due to flare."

and BTW, the 15-85 has newer better 4stop IS so it can better shoot still subjects in low light stopped down to give deeper dof - handheld. This lens has the new IS like my 100L

And getting back to the thread, and looking at some photos above and the chart below, the 35 f1.4 @ F2 on both FF and crop beats the sharpness of the 17-55 @F2.8 by a wide margin and gives better backdrop blur. F2.8 on crop is the FF equivqlent of f4.5 blur--which leaves a lot of clutter in the scene. Whereas, F2 on crop is the FF equivalent of F2.8 on FF and does a decent job blurring the backdrop. The combo of better sharpness and blur is significant and the reason to get the 35 L and 15-85 IS instead of both the lenses the op mentioned.

Tom Melanson said:

"Overall, image quality from this lens is very good(15-85). It is nearly equal to that from the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens - an impressive and best-selling lens."

From the below referenced review.

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

top tier image quality and it handles flare in the sun...

MAC said:

put both lenses on the widest end and compare. At f2.8, and 17 mm the 17-55 is soft in the middle and corners. Put the 17-55 on F4 at 17 mm and compare with the 15-85 at 15 mm at F4 -- the 15-85 beats the 17-55 at this setting.

Then compare 35 mm and 55 mm at f5.6 on both. This is where they even out.

The 17-55 does have f2.8 but I'd rather have a 35 L at F1.4- F2.8. I'd rather use the 15-85 with better 4 stop IS, better range, stopped down for scapes and group shots any day

Tom Melanson said:

In the test referenced, the 17-55 shows to be quite sharper with more contrast. At least it surely looks that way on my calibrated monitor.
(I find the 17-55 to be superior in contrast to the very good 24-105L.)

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

the 35 L beats the 17- 55 by a bunch in low light

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
(See equipment list under 'profile')

Click to expand...

loafer said:

The high precision AF points achieve focus within 1/3 of the depth of focus - they are active only with lenses faster than f/2.8
The normal precision AF points achieve focus within one depth of focus.

Click to expand...

"Achieve" doesn't give the right connotation for me. Canon say a standard precision point should put the subject within the depth of field (not depth of focus), and a high precision point should put the subject within the inner 1/3 of the DOF. In practice, a well-calibrated system with a well-behaved lens will do much better than "within the DOF" with a good target.

loafer said:

I can tell you for a fact that with my 50d center point is really much better with fast glass. It can find contrast in horizontals, verticals and diagonals and that means it almost never focuses on the wrong thing.

The only lens it fails with is the 50 1.4 and I think that is because that lens is so soft wide open that the AF system has trouble finding edges to focus on.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether an image looks soft at the widest aperture, since the AF points see the subject through their own virtual apertures which are much tighter (like f/29, according to some estimates). The lens's maximum aperture doesn't make any difference to the brightness of the image falling on the AF sensor, until the point at which the shadow of the aperture falls on the AF sensor, e.g. an f/4 lens will put some of an f/2.8 AF sensor in shadow.

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

Click to expand...

Don't agree, nor does Photozone tests which rate:

Optical Quality: 3 1/2 stars for 15-85, 4 stars for 17-55
Mechanical Quality: equal
Price/Performance: equal

OK, it's close, but I also think my 17-55 is overall sharper than my 15-85.

Also it's not really fair to compare a zoom lens with a prime as you have done; the prime being optimized at it's focal length while the zoom design has to compromise over a range of focal lengths. I think the prime would always win this contest.

Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

Don_D said:

MAC said:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=675&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=398&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

the 15-85 gives nothing away to the 17-55 and is more versatile in good light

Click to expand...

Don't agree, nor does Photozone tests which rate:

Optical Quality: 3 1/2 stars for 15-85, 4 stars for 17-55
Mechanical Quality: equal
Price/Performance: equal

OK, it's close, but I also think my 17-55 is overall sharper than my 15-85.

Also it's not really fair to compare a zoom lens with a prime as you have done; the prime being optimized at it's focal length while the zoom design has to compromise over a range of focal lengths. I think the prime would always win this contest.

Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond

Click to expand...

... any of these reviewer's can get a bad lens. My 15-85 IS is a great lens, and matches The Digital Picture Site sharpness, particularly at the wide end where it handily beats the 17-55 as you can see the visuals at that site.

What's not fair? Spending money wisely is the point. The Op asked if one should buy both the 17-55 and the 15-85 and all I said was imo NO -- spend a few more dollars to get the 35L instead of the 17-55 to combo with the 15-85 IS. That is fair on how one spends their dollars. BTW-- I also have the 5d, but chose the 15-85IS for my 60d over the 24-105 IS for my 5d. Many factors, including eye fi wireless transfers to my ipad with the 60d, and the huge dollar savings for little gain with a FF and a general zoom lens. I shoot primes on my 5d. BTW - the 17-55 is the FF equivalent of 27-88 F4.5 on a FF camera. I personally would not spend $1100 on a lens like that for a FF camera. If Canon had a well built, sharp, 24-136- 4 stop IS lens for FF that was the same weight as the 15-85 and was only $660 - the price I paid at B&H in March with the lens rebates -- then they'd have a winner!!! I was ready to buy a 5d3 kit thinking this would be the new lens they'd release -- and they didn't