Reading mode: Light Dark

I think its much better lens than what people let you think

Go to last post
S

Sc6566

New member
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Location
Washington, DC, US
of course it depend on your style. i am usually set it to the "optimum aperture" and let the camera do the rest.

in this way, you will avoid almost ALL the problem that was reported.

the one problem that you wont is the reliability issue. i had to send my lens twice to canon for repairs... the first one was under warranty, but the second one wasn't! that make the price of the lens even higher!
 
Last edited:
No problems here either . The 15-85mm is my general purpose lens and the "85" also means that I use it 85% of the time. It is a very good lens.
 
The only real issue with it is the amount of distortion, which certainly isn't reduced by stopping down. But I think it's a really decent lens, for me by far the best choice for APS-C. Plenty sharp enough, and a great range. It also performs brilliantly for IR shooting - no hotspots.
 
Rock and Rollei said:
The only real issue with it is the amount of distortion, which certainly isn't reduced by stopping down. But I think it's a really decent lens, for me by far the best choice for APS-C. Plenty sharp enough, and a great range. It also performs brilliantly for IR shooting - no hotspots.
Click to expand...
IMHO the biggest problem of this lens is that a majority of them are decentered, causing a soft/blurry corner or side. And that is not cured by stopping down either (although it becomes less obvious than at full open). Another known issue is frontfocus in the WA range on most older Rebel bodies. But I still use this lens because there is no better alternative on APS-C (a good quality zoom that starts at 24mm equiv.).

Agree about IR shooting, very little hotspot compared to most other current Canon lenses; probably a trait carried over from the 17-85. But corner sharpness at 15-24mm in IR leaves a lot to be desired, at least on my copy. I still have to do some controlled tests, but my impression is that a Sony dsc-f717 (from ten years ago) plus a good wide converter offers better corner sharpness at 24-35mm equiv. or so than this Canon lens :-(

Unfortunately, in IR there are no obvious alternatives either, except maybe using the 10-22 for wider shots (10-22 is supposedly quite good at the tele end in IR, but also has corner smearing towards the widest setting).
 
Please tell what is the optimal f stop of this lens.

Please tell what went wrong with your lens twice.

I use this lens exclusively for event shooting, never had any problem.

Yehuda
 
I have a similar "problem" with lens creep, with my 15-85, but it doesn't affect any aspect of my use of the lens. Used with my 7D, it produces some of the best photos I have taken, my 70-200f/4 IS L being a little better, but that's an unfair comparison as few lenses can compete with the 70-200.
 
Sc6566 said:
of course it depend on your style. i am usually set it to the "optimum aperture" and let the camera do the rest.

in this way, you will avoid almost ALL the problem that was reported.

the one problem that you wont is the reliability issue. i had to send my lens twice to canon for repairs... the first one was under warranty, but the second one wasn't! that make the price of the lens even higher!
Click to expand...
 
It is NOT. Its just as good as it gets.

Its a slow lens. f5.6 at 85mm is all u get. Distortion, Lens creep, decentering are very common problems with this lens. Another issue is the IS. I did not experience that many stops as advertised by Canon.

The 17-55mm is absolutely fantastic with good corner sharpness whereas the 15-85mm is not. Just because one has this lens, carries this lens as walk around lens does not make it a good lens. IMHO this lens should be priced <500$.

The lens has good build quality, sharp (though slow) and has quick AF.
 
Damoo said:
IMHO this lens should be priced <500$.
Click to expand...
Only slightly sharper than the 18-55IS kit zoom in most of the overlapping range, just as slow and more decentering problems; but better color/contrast, much better mechanical quality and more useful range (I don't care about the 55-85 part especially with the slow aperture, but 15-18mm is very useful to me). Difficult to see why you have to pay 10x the kit zoom price for these extras ....

P.S.: for IR photography there is no competition, the kit zoom is horrible in IR.
 
technic said:
Rock and Rollei said:
The only real issue with it is the amount of distortion, which certainly isn't reduced by stopping down. But I think it's a really decent lens, for me by far the best choice for APS-C. Plenty sharp enough, and a great range. It also performs brilliantly for IR shooting - no hotspots.
Click to expand...
IMHO the biggest problem of this lens is that a majority of them are decentered, causing a soft/blurry corner or side. And that is not cured by stopping down either (although it becomes less obvious than at full open). Another known issue is frontfocus in the WA range on most older Rebel bodies. But I still use this lens because there is no better alternative on APS-C (a good quality zoom that starts at 24mm equiv.).

Agree about IR shooting, very little hotspot compared to most other current Canon lenses; probably a trait carried over from the 17-85. But corner sharpness at 15-24mm in IR leaves a lot to be desired, at least on my copy. I still have to do some controlled tests, but my impression is that a Sony dsc-f717 (from ten years ago) plus a good wide converter offers better corner sharpness at 24-35mm equiv. or so than this Canon lens :-(

Unfortunately, in IR there are no obvious alternatives either, except maybe using the 10-22 for wider shots (10-22 is supposedly quite good at the tele end in IR, but also has corner smearing towards the widest setting).
Click to expand...
I've no idea if the majority of them are decentered (although it sounds unlikely), but mine isn't. It's remarkably sharp for the money, including the corners. It's considerably better than the 18-55 IS, which is actually not terrible in terms of sharpness itself.

I was using it today on a shoot for a book. Compared to the 17-55, it's a lot cheaper, nearly as sharp, has a much wider and more useful focal length range (especially that 2mm at the wide end), has more distortion and is slower. It's a much more useful lens to me.
 
Rock and Rollei said:
I've no idea if the majority of them are decentered (although it sounds unlikely), but mine isn't. It's remarkably sharp for the money, including the corners.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure a few years ago the majority of them had this defect, judging from examples in forum discussions, online reviews and the samples I tested myself. Maybe they improved production or QC after that, or maybe you just got lucky ;-)
Rock and Rollei said:
It's considerably better than the 18-55 IS, which is actually not terrible in terms of sharpness itself.
Click to expand...
For me the big problem of the 18-55IS is that it has a nasty kind of diffuse flare in contrasty lighting, which is impossible to remove in PP (maybe the 18-55IS STM is better, I don't have experience with that one). Sharpness is as good as the 15-85, except for the top of its range (50-55mm) where the 15-85 is clearly better. But then, my 1.8/50 runs circles around the 15-85 at 50mm, when looking at the corners ...
Rock and Rollei said:
I was using it today on a shoot for a book. Compared to the 17-55, it's a lot cheaper, nearly as sharp, has a much wider and more useful focal length range (especially that 2mm at the wide end), has more distortion and is slower. It's a much more useful lens to me.
Click to expand...
It has a very useful focal length range indeed, and that makes it a good choice despite my feeling that it is not very good value for money. I would prefer a 15-50mm or so instead, with higher corner quality and possibly a bit wider aperture.
 
Last edited:
technic said:
Rock and Rollei said:
I've no idea if the majority of them are decentered (although it sounds unlikely), but mine isn't. It's remarkably sharp for the money, including the corners.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure a few years ago the majority of them had this defect, judging from examples in forum discussions, online reviews and the samples I tested myself. Maybe they improved production or QC after that, or maybe you just got lucky ;-)
Click to expand...
Maybe, although mine is several years old - bought a 7D body for sports/wildlife, decided I liked it, so got this lens to go with it. But I'm always very wary of judging anything by forum discussions, especially here. ;)
technic said:
technic said:
It's considerably better than the 18-55 IS, which is actually not terrible in terms of sharpness itself.
Click to expand...
For me the big problem of the 18-55IS is that it has a nasty kind of diffuse flare in contrasty lighting, which is impossible to remove in PP (maybe the 18-55IS STM is better, I don't have experience with that one). Sharpness is as good as the 15-85, except for the top of its range (50-55mm) where the 15-85 is clearly better. But then, my 1.8/50 runs circles around the 15-85 at 50mm, when looking at the corners ...
Click to expand...
Fair comment; true about any prime in this range. Much though I like the cheap little 18-55, though, none of the ones I've used have been as sharp as the 15-85 anywhere until well stopped down. Now the 17-85 really isn't any better than the 18-55, and is for me the worst value lens in Canon's range.
technic said:
technic said:
I was using it today on a shoot for a book. Compared to the 17-55, it's a lot cheaper, nearly as sharp, has a much wider and more useful focal length range (especially that 2mm at the wide end), has more distortion and is slower. It's a much more useful lens to me.
Click to expand...
It has a very useful focal length range indeed, and that makes it a good choice despite my feeling that it is not very good value for money. I would prefer a 15-50mm or so instead, with higher corner quality and possibly a bit wider aperture.
Click to expand...
 
Rock and Rollei said:
Much though I like the cheap little 18-55, though, none of the ones I've used have been as sharp as the 15-85 anywhere until well stopped down.
Click to expand...
I only used it on a 450D (12 MPixel) so maybe that skews my impression. I tested four different 18-55IS units and three different 15-85's. Below 50 mm the little 18-55IS was on average as sharp as the 15-85IS, assuming you focus with liveview and not with PD-AF. The 15-85 probably has better center resolution, but I care more about even performance across the frame.

However ... the 18-55IS has strong (and unpredictable) frontfocus in the WA range, at least on some Rebel bodies (e.g. focusing at 1-3 meters instead of 20 meters distance). I have read countless times that the 18-55IS is 'very soft' wide open, but all the ones I tested were pretty sharp full open - IF focused correctly ...
Rock and Rollei said:
Now the 17-85 really isn't any better than the 18-55, and is for me the worst value lens in Canon's range.
Click to expand...
agree. But supposedly it performs relatively well in infrared, and you can pick them up used for little money nowadays ;-)
 
technic said:
Rock and Rollei said:
Much though I like the cheap little 18-55, though, none of the ones I've used have been as sharp as the 15-85 anywhere until well stopped down.
Click to expand...
I only used it on a 450D (12 MPixel) so maybe that skews my impression. I tested four different 18-55IS units and three different 15-85's. Below 50 mm the little 18-55IS was on average as sharp as the 15-85IS, assuming you focus with liveview and not with PD-AF. The 15-85 probably has better center resolution, but I care more about even performance across the frame.

However ... the 18-55IS has strong (and unpredictable) frontfocus in the WA range, at least on some Rebel bodies (e.g. focusing at 1-3 meters instead of 20 meters distance). I have read countless times that the 18-55IS is 'very soft' wide open, but all the ones I tested were pretty sharp full open - IF focused correctly ...
Click to expand...
Yes, they're not bad. I - or my immediate family - have owned 4 of them, not one has been bad, all have been pretty sharp, none have had any focusing error on any body we're used them on (350D, 450D, 1000D, 550D, 600D, 7D). Don't have them all now, lenses or cameras!

Only had the one 15-85 (thankfully!), but it's been great; as I said, I bought it for the 7D, but it gets a lot of use on my IR cameras (450D/30D, which have different filters).
 
Sc6566 said:
of course it depend on your style. i am usually set it to the "optimum aperture" and let the camera do the rest.

in this way, you will avoid almost ALL the problem that was reported.

the one problem that you wont is the reliability issue. i had to send my lens twice to canon for repairs... the first one was under warranty, but the second one wasn't! that make the price of the lens even higher!
Click to expand...
the 15-85 is my walk-around all purpose lens on my 60d...have had it 2 years.. still my favorite lens.. I also have the 17-55.. but for overall shooting I still like my 15-85 ... the extra 'zoom' on the high end and the wider angle at the short end... I've only sent it in one time to Canon for cleaning and a checkup ... the only thing that bothers me with my 17-55 is a lot of lens flare for outside sunny-type pics.. tried it using a Canon hood... tried it using a clear B+W Pro UV filter.. still the same .. nice using it inside though at 2.8
 
Rock and Rollei said:
Only had the one 15-85 (thankfully!), but it's been great; as I said, I bought it for the 7D, but it gets a lot of use on my IR cameras (450D/30D, which have different filters).
Click to expand...
do you also see corner smearing with the 15-85 in IR, at the wide end of the range? I'm using a 450D with 720nm Lifepixel conversion. First I thought maybe the IR filter was not strong enough and the blur was caused by visible light leakage. But with a front mounted R72 filter the corner sharpness doesn't get much better. The borders/corners are not just 'soft' but with some rough look a bit like motion blur or camera shake; stopping down doesn't help much. At higher focal length it looks much better though, at 85mm it even looks sharper than in visible light ;-)

greyscale converted example below (hope this can be viewed at full resolution):



3b617ee6cae94b50a22eac9a147774f8.jpg
 
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