17-85 vs 15-85

[James Noe]

Hi,

I used to have the Canon EF-S 17-85 USM lens, but it broke (ribbon cable inside wore away with zooming, not an uncommon problem unfortunately).

I replaced it with a Tamron 17-270 lens as a bit of a hurried purchase as I was about to go on holiday. It's a useful lens, but I don't find the image quality as good as the Canon 17-85, plus the focussing is too slow and inaccurate for my liking.

I decided to just go and buy another 17-85 lens, but saw there's now a 15-85 lens that has 2 additional elements, and may arguably have better image quality but is quite a bit more expensive.

I'm not too fussed about the extra 2mm as I have a 10-24mm lens but I can see the benefit.

Just wondering if anyone has any concrete comparisons or views.

Thanks,

 

[photofan1986]

In theory, the 15-85 should be much better optically, but I say in theory, because I got through three copies, and all had a problem or another. Decentering issue and autofocus inconsistencies are the most common problems. I am considering to sell my third copy, as I am really fed up with Canon's poor quality control. I might buy a much cheaper Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM OS. Thumbs down, Canon!

 

[photonius]

In theory, the 15-85 should be much better optically, but I say in theory, because I got through three copies, and all had a problem or another. Decentering issue and autofocus inconsistencies are the most common problems. I am considering to sell my third copy, as I am really fed up with Canon's poor quality control. I might buy a much cheaper Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM OS. Thumbs down, Canon!

let us know how many copies of the Sigma you have to go through.

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[photofan1986]

What does that mean? Do I really need to buy a Leica M lens in order to be sure to get a good copy right away?

Well, my Sigma 30 1.4 has been perfect since the first copy...

 

[raptorx]

Hi,

I used to have the Canon EF-S 17-85 USM lens, but it broke (ribbon cable inside wore away with zooming, not an uncommon problem unfortunately).

I replaced it with a Tamron 17-270 lens as a bit of a hurried purchase as I was about to go on holiday. It's a useful lens, but I don't find the image quality as good as the Canon 17-85, plus the focussing is too slow and inaccurate for my liking.

I decided to just go and buy another 17-85 lens, but saw there's now a 15-85 lens that has 2 additional elements, and may arguably have better image quality but is quite a bit more expensive.

I'm not too fussed about the extra 2mm as I have a 10-24mm lens but I can see the benefit.

Just wondering if anyone has any concrete comparisons or views.

Thanks,

if you did not have the 10-24 I'd recommend 15-85, in your case you can spare extra bucks for other gear.

But, I used 17-85 for a couple days, 15-85 makes you feel the quality difference the moment you hold it.
--
love to shoot both airguns and pictures

 

[bhollis]

This tool allows you to compare IQ at various focal lengths and apertures. In addition to being 2mm wider and having better IQ, the 15-85 also has better IS, and better build quality.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=251&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=675&CameraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

 

[plantdoc]

As indicated, the 15-85mm can be a very good lens and it should be for the price. However, watch out for decentering (soft along one side) especially at wide angle and more distant subjects. Like another post, it took me 3 copies to get one without a significant decentering problem. Decentering and sometimes AF seem to be fairly common and it varies with focal length and distance... just to add confusion ... so shooting a test target is not adequate. I have returned too many lenses (Canon and others) for this problem. Even fixed lens cameras are not immune. Test to get your money's worth... unfortunately. However, be somewhat realistic, at 100% view, 18 megapixels, I don't expect tack sharp corner to corner at all apertures and FL. However, very soft along 15-20% of one side of the frame is not acceptable. Just my .02

Greg

 

[Pimpleportrait]

Hi James,

The 15-85 should be better according to the reviews. But that's just the reviews. You can always go to your supplier, mount it on your camera and fire at a high contrast scene, say the edges of buildings on a sunny day. Also give the 17-50 2.8 Sigma a go.

I have used the older 17-85 on my then 400D and the Chromatic Aberration/fringing is horrendous. Even the newer 18-55 kit may do a better job in this regard. I have some samples of the 17-85 on my 2008 trip to India, just go to my India Album

http://www.benizisantamaria.com
http://www.fairworldphoto.com

 

[stratobill]

I have a great copy of the 15-85 and it is a great one lens solution for travel for me. It doesn't seem to have any of the decentering issues others have mentioned. The pictures really pop, and any of the problems on the lens are corrected in one click with a Lightroom preset.

I also recently got the 17-55 got low light work, and that lens is sharper, as well as faster, the tradeoff being the more limited range. That lens really gives my 70-200 a run for it's money in terms of wow factor!

But if I was heading to Europe, I would probably bring the 15-85.

 

[jkuo]

Hi,

I used to have the Canon EF-S 17-85 USM lens, but it broke (ribbon cable inside wore away with zooming, not an uncommon problem unfortunately).

I just had the exact same thing happen to my 17-85 less than a month ago, and it was during my vacation to Disney in Florida. All of a sudden, I started getting Error 01 on my 40D and as you've found out, it was caused by an internal ribbon in the lens having been worn out. There was nothing I could do for the rest of the trip except rely on my backup point and shoot for pictures afterwards.

I decided to just go and buy another 17-85 lens, but saw there's now a 15-85 lens that has 2 additional elements, and may arguably have better image quality but is quite a bit more expensive.

I had the same dilemma as you, and decided to bite the bullet and get the 15-85, which I just received last week. Even though I wasn't dissatisfied with the 17-85, I didn't want to run the risk of having the same lens fail on me twice for what is undoubtedly a design flaw.

Just wondering if anyone has any concrete comparisons or views.

As I've mentioned I've only had the 15-85 for a little over a week and had not really had a lot of time to put it through its paces, but so far, it's looking like a keeper. No decentering issues that I can see and it seems to AF accurately and reliably. Here is how I think it stacks up against the 17-85:

Pros:

• Significantly sharper near the edges and borders especially at wide angle. In the center, it's actually pretty close, but I would still give the edge to the 15-85.
• Better build - maybe not quite as nice as an L lens, but it certainly feels better in your hands, and the zoom ring has a nice dampened feel to it as you zoom in and out. Don't know yet if it will get looser over time.
• Goes noticeably wider at 15 vs. 17mm and has a slightly wider aperture (3.5 vs. 4).
• Slightly less barrel distortion at the wide angle than the 17-85, although it's certainly still quite noticeable especially when you are taking pictures of straight lines.
• Less CA at the edges generally speaking, although it's not much of a problem since it's easy to correct in DPP.
• 4 stop IS allows you to take handheld pictures at slower speeds with less camera shake.

Cons:

• Significantly more vignetting at the wide angle especially when shooting wide open. Not a big deal, as it can be easily corrected in post-processing.
• Noticeably heavier
• Significantly more expensive

If you have the funds, I would say go for it. Just be sure you buy it at a place where you can easily return it in case you get a bad copy, as there seems to be plenty of reports of decentering issues.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

What does that mean? Do I really need to buy a Leica M lens in order to be sure to get a good copy right away?

Well, my Sigma 30 1.4 has been perfect since the first copy...

So has mine, and my 18-50/2.8, and my 150 macro. On the other hand I bought a Sigma 50/1.4 and it was obvious right out of the box that focusing was inaccurate and inconsistent, so that one went back. Just the luck of the draw I think.

 

[Damoo]

Since u already have the 10-24mm lens, why don't u look at the 17-55mm f2.8 which is better optically & sharper in the corners. Another option is sigma 17-50mm f2.8.

On ur actual question, the 15-85mm is definitely better than 17-85mm.

 

[photonius]

What does that mean? Do I really need to buy a Leica M lens in order to be sure to get a good copy right away?

maybe

Well, my Sigma 30 1.4 has been perfect since the first copy...

you were lucky then. From all the posts, and also comments on review sites, Sigma seems to have the worst record of quality control. the 17-70 OS that photozone tested was not perfectly centered, so you might have sent it back. The slrgear tested version was also decentered...

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[yokochanie]

The 15-85 is a wonderful lens but can be soft at low spreeds. I had massive problems with it at anything from 180/s to about 30/s until someone on here mentioned that the IS can be funny and once you have touched first release, hold for a second before clicking the picture. Found this cured the problem and no longer get the soft images but razor shape ones.

Still takes a while to learn to hold off squeezing the picture once focussed for a second though. But it works and soft images are a thing of the past.

 

[Paljas]

The 15-85 is a wonderful lens but can be soft at low spreeds. I had massive problems with it at anything from 180/s to about 30/s until someone on here mentioned that the IS can be funny and once you have touched first release, hold for a second before clicking the picture. Found this cured the problem and no longer get the soft images but razor shape ones.

Still takes a while to learn to hold off squeezing the picture once focussed for a second though. But it works and soft images are a thing of the past.

Do you need to do this even if your IS is set to run all the time?
--
Observing dreaming seeking

 

[Klaus dk]

Just a couple of pictures taken with the 15-85.









No sharpening applied, neither in camera nor in PP.

If I could have only one lens for my 550D, this is the one I would choose. A colleague of mine has the 17-85, and it is no match at all.
--
Less is more

 

[photonius]

The 15-85 is a wonderful lens but can be soft at low spreeds. I had massive problems with it at anything from 180/s to about 30/s until someone on here mentioned that the IS can be funny and once you have touched first release, hold for a second before clicking the picture. Found this cured the problem and no longer get the soft images but razor shape ones.

Still takes a while to learn to hold off squeezing the picture once focussed for a second though. But it works and soft images are a thing of the past.

Do you need to do this even if your IS is set to run all the time?

Yes, IS automatically turns off after a while when you release the shutter.

So, when you want to take a new picture, you press the shutter half-way, and it takes a little (0.5 to 1 sec, maybe faster, depending on lens) for the IS to "spin-up" and start working. Think about it, the IS is supposed to compensate motion, so for it to work, it first needs to start to gather some data about current movement.

--
Observing dreaming seeking

--
Life is short, time to zoom in ©

 

[Steve Balcombe]

The 15-85 is a wonderful lens but can be soft at low spreeds. I had massive problems with it at anything from 180/s to about 30/s until someone on here mentioned that the IS can be funny and once you have touched first release, hold for a second before clicking the picture. Found this cured the problem and no longer get the soft images but razor shape ones.

Still takes a while to learn to hold off squeezing the picture once focussed for a second though. But it works and soft images are a thing of the past.

You seem to be implying that this is a problem with the 15-85. It's not, it's how IS works.

 

[yokochanie]

Steve Balcombe wrote

You seem to be implying that this is a problem with the 15-85. It's not, it's how IS works.

Well yes you are right. My only problem with the lens was that I use four other lens with IS and they were always sharp, only the 15-85 had this problem, and many others over time have said 'so sharp one minute, really soft the next', So I totally accept your point but for whatever reason the problem shows up on this lens more then on any other by the sound of it.

But good idea to do first press and hold for half a second whatever lens, makes for better results always, if of course the subject allows.

 

[Aurangabadkar]

It's truly versatile and the IS on it rocks, these were all hand held in available light!
Good Luck!
--
Sanjeev