Requesting assistance from experienced EF-S lens owners

Not trying to oversell the lens, but others have seen 4 stops IS and think it rivals the 17-55:

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

Here are test pictures form the same site showing the 17-55 best and the 15-85 slightly behind at worst:

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

Yes, the 15-85mm is close to the 17-55mm lens. Thats why it is priced closer to the 17-55mm. However, how close it is depends on the parameters considered. If its corner sharpness, distortion, CA then the 17-55mm f2.8 wins.

Photozone.de is another reputed site. They do state that the lens is just behind the 17-55 in Optical quality and term that the price is high.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=2

On a different note, Canon's APS-C standard zooms were all abysmally bad till couple of 4-5 years ago. The 17-85mm, 18-135 were all bad compared to even the lowly priced Nikkor 18-105mm.

Lenses like Sigma's 17-50mm that sell at almost half the price of Canon's 17-55mm f2.8 cannot be easily discarded.

I actually have the older Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 as my 2.8 lens so I agree the third party lenses should be considered (and that's one of the advantages of Canikon)  but I find it too short for walk around purposes, and only use it when I know I am in a tight space with low light.

jwb1 wrote:

Hello all. Thank you for taking the time. I promise I googled this question before posting...

I have a T4i with the 18-55 STM. I love this lens but I want to upgrade to something that is better (useability, IQ). I primarily shoot stills, but I do like to shoot videos to document trips (casual use). I am trying not to focus on lens weight and build quality so much.

The lenses I am looking at are

Canon 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 STM. Less than $300 new on ebay. I would sell 18-55 STM if purchased.

Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 STM. Less than $200 new on ebay. I would keep 18-55 STM if purchased.

Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 "C" (the updated version). Less than $400 new on ebay. I would sell 18-55 STM if purchased.

I am leaning towards the 18-135 STM because it will let me use one lens. But since it is a superzoom, is there noticeable falloff in IQ compared to the 18-55 STM? If there is, is it substantial to the point where this lens would be unwise to purchase?

The 55-250 STM seems like a very nice addition as I would still be able to use my 18-55 STM, but I am not super excited about changing lenses. However if the 18-135 STM has poorer IQ than the 18-55 STM, I would rather buy the 55-250 STM.

Now the elephant in the room is the Sigma 17-70 "C". On paper it seems awesome but reviews show that its a bit soft wide open at 17mm, and results are best when stopped down. But is this lens worth the price over the other options if I have to shoot at a higher aperture?

I have used the 18-55 STM, have the 18-135 STM but haven't tried the 55-250 STM because I have the 70-200 f/4 IS USM.

If I were to pick one lens for walking around - as I don't like changing lenses in a dusty environment, it would be the 18-135 STM.

In terms of IQ, there is next to no difference between the STM lenses. Your Image quality difference is the difference in subject resolution between shooting at 55 mm or 60 mm - focus breathing would put you out by as much.

The difference in convenience more than makes up for it.

In terms if video, you can't beat the 18-135 for the IS, STM focus and the range. Remember, I have the 70-200 L f./4 IS as well.

The L is simply much better. If you take the resolving power of the 55-250 and the 70-200, you'll get more resolving power for the same image after cropping with the L glass, the ability to shoot at f/4 wide open with no IQ penalty to speak of.

In your shoes, I'd get the 18-135 STM or the 70-200 f/4 L IS USM used. Sure, it's a heck of a price-tag difference but at least you can see the difference. last choice (but a good one) would be the 55-250 STM.

A common fallacy is that you need to cover the entire range. If I were working just with primes, I'd be happy with 24, 50, 100 and 200 lenses. If fact, I own 24mm, 50mm and 60mm macro primes - -pecifically for their low-light capability and portrait performance. so 50mm + 70-200 gives me all the portrait options I need.

cb

I felt like this needed closure.

While researching, I realized my tax return was coming! So instead of compromising, I busted out the big bills and bought the Sigma 18-35. I went back and looked at photographs I shot with the kit lens. Most of them were in the 24-35mm range. I thought about it a lot and I realized it's better to get the best lens I can.

Here are some sample photos! I did some testing and found that my copy has zero focusing issues. This lens is truly unleashing the photo opportunities I never had before. Thank you for all your suggestions! I will definitely be looking back at this thread when I purchase a longer zoom lens.

Look at the sharpness. Much clarity.

Delicious bokeh balls.

jwb1 wrote:

I felt like this needed closure.

While researching, I realized my tax return was coming! So instead of compromising, I busted out the big bills and bought the Sigma 18-35. I went back and looked at photographs I shot with the kit lens. Most of them were in the 24-35mm range. I thought about it a lot and I realized it's better to get the best lens I can.

Here are some sample photos! I did some testing and found that my copy has zero focusing issues. This lens is truly unleashing the photo opportunities I never had before. Thank you for all your suggestions! I will definitely be looking back at this thread when I purchase a longer zoom lens.

Look at the sharpness. Much clarity.

Delicious bokeh balls.

Good choice. Looks sharp and great bokeh for wide angle.

Enjoy it!