Anyone with experience of 15-85 (and ideally 17-55mm, too)?

To me the crux of your issue is that you want a significantly wider range that will not require you to change lenses in the field.  The two lenses that you have indicated do cover a slightly wider range than your current 18-55, but certainly in the case of the 17-55 barely so.

As you may see from my profile I have a lot of Canon gear, including at one time a 17-55mm lens. I was frankly disappointed with the IQ and sold it. I have actually two 15-85mm lenses and like them both because of the sharpness of the images they produce and the wide range they cover, especially from the wider angle end. This lens has been described as the "secret L series lens" because of the way in which it handles a very challenging focal length range. Getting a lens with that extra 3mm on the wide end requires a lot of engineering and while the lenses have some compromises they can easily be ironed out in post processing with lightroom or Photoshop. ANY zoom is a compromise and it is unfair to compare it to say a prime lens.

I would seriously suggest you look at the Canon 18-135 IS STM lens.  It comes as a kit lens with many XXD cameras and is generally regarded as a good lens of its type.  Again it will cover a wide range, but that seems to be what what you are seeking and the two units I have owned have rendered excellent results.  The question of choice between the 15-85 and 18-135 would be where you want the extra reach?  If it is at the telephoto end, which you seem to indicate then the 18-135 IS STM is a good unit to consider and you may well pick one up second hand from someone who got it with a kit.

I was intrigued with your comment that your camera body creaked. My question would be why it should do so if you are holding the camera in the "approved manner": I.e. placing your left hand under the lens, thus carrying the weight of the lens and body, leaving your right hand to lightly manipulate the controls on the body. Consequently the grip should not be taking any significant weight except when you are porting the camera.  I still have a 650D and even with a hefty 70-200 L lens on it has never made even a whimper...

My experiences with the 15-85, 17-55, and 18-135 stm is that they will all produce very good images suitable for 13 x 19 prints or even larger, IF...  They are not decentered, which may occur only in a limited portion of the zoom range. I had this issue with the 15-85 at wide angle. One of 2, 18-135mm  stm had a noticeable problem in mid range wide angle. Also, if they focus properly and consistently. 17-55 needed a trip to Canon because it would not focus accurately on 3 different bodies at wide angle except in live view. The 15-85 needs MFA corrections and is not accurate on 2 different Rebel T series bodies. Front focusing frequently. Maybe I am just unlucky with lens purchases or I examine them too closely. i also realize that with 18-20 megapixel cameras you don't need perfection at 100% view to have excellent prints.

Greg

The range of the 15-85, becomes addictive!  Those extra 3mm in the wide end make a very, very big difference. You can crop to get closer to the 18-135mm, but getting a wider shot is always a pita. It is a little slow at 85mm, but you have your nifty fifty for portraits. Mine was very sharp and the IS was excellent.

Dave Sparks wrote:

I have the 15-85 and the 18-135 STM - got it in a kit with the 70D, thinking that the extra range would be nice. But I prefer the image quality of the 15-85 over the 18-135 - it subjectively just looks better to me so the 18-135 sees virtually no use. I'm just keeping it as a backup and with hindsight I would have bought the 70D as body-only.I

When buying anything, I always define exactly what I want out of the device or service I am considering, and then work back from there. A major issue is what is your output format going to be? There is a huge difference between producing output for electronic media and that for producing high quality large format prints, and in between those lie a wide range of output options.

I like both the 18-135 and 15-85mm lenses for their purposes, but as I said in my previous post the question is at what end of the range do you want the extra capability. If you want an improvement at both ends over the 18-55 then IMHO the 15-85 is the way to go. If, as I interpreted it, you want to have more reach at the telephoto end without swapping to your 55-250, then I would recommend the 18-135mm unit for that purpose or go for the excellent Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG OS HSM Art lens that has outperformed Canon's own L series 24-105 (MkI) unit in tests.

With a respectful nod to Dave's comments, which are absolutely validly based on his experience, my experience was that I did not have the same issues with my 18-135mm lenses, although I took good care to test them rigorously before purchasing.  I use a wide range of gear, from modest consumer level cameras to FF professional bodies and lenses.  The one thing I would recommend is once you decide on what you want the les to do, buy the best quality glass you can afford.  Bodies change with monotonous regularity but lenses last for a long time and I have excellent results with a good lens on a modest body.

Whichever way you go, good luck with your choice and let us know how it works out!

I just wanted to thank everyone for your incredibly helpful advice – and to apologise for my rudeness in only just now replying.

After reading everyone's replies, I'd thought that I was certain to go for the 15-85mm. But, I hope you won't think I did think something foolish – at the last minute, I decided on the 17-55...

Like dave_bass5, I too live in the UK (and, to make things worse, near ever-overcast Manchester), and I came to realise just how useful being able to use f/2.8 on my 50mm STM has been. (As ddixon mentioned, the 50mm seems quite soft at f/1.8 – I inadvertently came across this chart and was surprised to see how much sharper it becomes at f/2.8: http://www.lenstip.com/444.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.8_STM_Image_resolution.html)

I think that, knowing I could foreseeably only purchase one of the two lenses, I eventually realised that I would use the 17-55 more frequently, even though the 15-85 would be the best lens for if I were travelling somewhere. I realised that this probably happens much less frequently than I take indoor or low-light shots, though.

I suppose another factor was, with how many times I've read that the 17-55 is perhaps the best EF-S lens, I would have forever wondered if I should have gone with that while I had the chance.

I really am sorry to have gone a different way to what I'd indicated – but I wouldn't want it to seem as though your advice has been wasted. If ever I'm in a position to purchase the 15-85, I feel much more confident in knowing that I'd be buying an excellent lens.

About my 650D's handle squeaking... I think you might well be right. I purchased the 55-250mm not too long after the body and, being my first DSLR, I suspect I made the mistake of walking around holding the 650D by its handle alone, only bearing the weight across both hands when taking a shot. It's something I definitely won't be repeating with my 80D!

I'd been considering the 18-135 for a while (it looks like a fantastic lens) but, when I found out about the 15-85, I realised that I'd perhaps find the extra 3mm at the wide end more useful than 135mm. It's still a lens I'd certainly bear in mind for the future, though.

On a more positive note, I'm utterly amazed by the 17-55. I can't believe how sharp it is – and, against what I'd been expecting, at f/2.8. And I really like its bokeh, too. I had an exam yesterday so, with the build up to that, I haven't managed to use it, or the 80D, as much as I'd like, but I'm looking forward to spending more time with it now.

Thanks to everyone for allaying my fears about lenses of this weight feeling unbalanced, too. The 17-55 feels reassuringly weighty on the 80D and perfectly in balance. I really couldn't be happier with it.

Thanks again to everyone for your help.

ddixon wrote:

My mistake was that in trying to get better quality I also rented a 6D

This might be the most valuable piece of advice I take away from this thread – don't try a 6D!

That's great.  The main thing is that you are happy with your choice and have gained from the discussion.  Certainly the 17-55 has a great max f-number, and I am glad you got a sharp one.  All the best with your shooting in the future.

cheers:  Trevor

totleytom wrote:

I've got the 15-85 and have had it for some years. I've used it on a 500D; 60D; 100D; and currently a 750D. As that progression has been made, I've become increasingly dissatisfied with it. You'll note that the resolution of those bodies increases from 15mp to 18mp and now to 24mp. On the most recent body, I don't find it sharp enough.

It might just be a focusing issue but I don't think so - I know what a mis-focused image looks like and these aren't like that. I have a feeling that mine is simply not that good - slight centering issues, perhaps? - and the 24 mp sensor on the 750D is revealing that in a way the older bodies didn't. My 18-55 STM is almost as good, in fact, and the little 24mm STM prime is heaps better.

My 6D + 24-105 combination knocks the 750D + 15-85 out of the water.

Interesting comments Totlytom!

One of the revealing things that the website DXO Mark (https://www.dxomark.com) website shows is that the performance of lens varies with different bodies, which is logical, but I was surprised by how much it varies. You might find it interesting to try the site using the various combination of lens and body to see what they show.

The EFS 15-85 has a major challenge in that it goes from a very wide angle to a moderate telephoto, making it in effect a super zoom. The 24-105 L has a much less challenging range of focal length because it avoids the wider angle range, and of course it ISan L series lens!

I have two each of the 15-85's and 24-105's and I use them both depending on the type of image I am trying to capture and for what purpose. I tend to keep the 24-105's for my 7D and 5DIII bodies, and use the 15-85 on my 60D and 80D bodies - where they render good results for my purposes.

I would expect that a full-frame body combined with an L-series lens would offer a significant improvement, as you have experienced. That said, there is a bit of a myth that non-L series lenses are by definition, lower quality, especially EF-S class lenses. The nature of the optics design of these lenses immediately makes them lighter and cheaper than those for FF bodies, especially if compared against the L series lenses, which are not primarily meant to deliver optimum results for cropped bodies, with the possible exception of the 7D models. Many of the newer EF-S lens actually use high quality glass combined with composite components to make them lighter and cheaper, but they tend to feel less impressive than the non-EF-S units.

As I maintain what is the best for a particular photographer is dependent on a combination of things: what the budget is, what kind of photography one engages in and especially what kind of output is required.