Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review

[Bryan Carnathan]

Discuss theCanon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens Review (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]<span style="color: #003399;)- Tell us what you think of theCanon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens.

[DavidEccleston]

Great review. Nice to finally see your comments backing up what your ISO charts showed... it's a fantastic lens.


Personally I was (and still am I suppose) a bit worried about the variable aperture. I don't know how much of a concern that really should be though, as my low light shots would probably tend to be indoors, wide-to-mid-angle-ish shots anyway, which isn't THAT much slower than the 17-55mm's f/2.8. In exchange for the slower lens, you get IS, wider reach, longer reach, and money in the bank. Not a bad trade.

[neuroanatomist]

Excellent review, as usual Bryan!


This lens was announced by Canon just at the time I was debating the relative merits of theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USMand theEF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I expected that the IQ of thenew 15-85mm would be better than that of the 17-85mm, but it's interesting that the 15-85mm seems to be significantly better. I also felt like the extra 2mm on the wide end would help stave off the desire for theEF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM. However, in the end I went with the 17-55mm f/2.8, adding the 85mm f/1.8 to fill in the longer focal length. The faster lenses provide much better action-stopping capability and open up indoor ambient light shooting possibilities that the 15-85mm would miss (1 2/3 stops vs. the 17-55mm at 55mm, 2 1/3 stops vs. the 85mm prime).


Having said that, for day hikes when I want to limit the amount I'm carrying without paying a big IQ penalty, this lens may make it into the kit at some point.






<div>






Personally I was (and still am I suppose) a bit worried about the variable aperture. I don't know how much of a concern that really should be though, as my low light shots would probably tend to be indoors, wide-to-mid-angle-ish shots anyway, which isn't THAT much slower than the 17-55mm's f/2.8. In exchange for the slower lens, you get IS, wider reach, longer reach, and money in the bank. Not a bad trade.






I'm not a big fan of variable apertures, myself. But, I did want to point out that theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM does have IS, so there's no trade off there. I find myself taking a lot of indoor shots close in (usually of my 22 month-old daughter), and that extra 1 2/3 stops at anything over 38mm makes a big difference.
</div>

[DavidEccleston]

But, I did want to point out that theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM does have IS, so there's no trade off thereD'oh. I was probably thinking of the Tamron 17-50mm (which also now has an IS version). Thanks for the correction, though you're not making my decisions any easier. ;)

[ShutterbugJohan]

I'm surprised how well it did. I expected an "extended range" 17-85mm quality lens. Looks like a great performer, though.

[Abu Lafya]

After reading Photozone review and this site's review for this lens, I feel that there is some discrepancy, I'd like to be resolved.


Both sites mention the high vignetting &lt;= @F/5.6 and barrel distortion and CA. But this site's somehow seems to indicate resolution is high off-center, at least with respect to other EF-S lenses, on par with 17-55 and significantly better than 18-55 IS.


While not all units of the EF-S 15-85 are exactly the same, it still seems puzzling: "Excellent" vs. "Desirable ... slightly overpriced".


Another point, is when comparing EF-S 15-85 to Nikkor 16-85, it seems the latter is superior in all respects. Is Canon playing catch-up with Nikon?

[Daniel Browning]

Great review, Bryan. I read this part with interest:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"] "This implementation of IS is very quiet (not easy to hear operating even with your ear next to the lens) and is very well-behaved (image does not bounce into stabilization). Auto-panning is featured - the lens figures out when you are panning with a moving subject and adjusts motion correction for this. "


I wonder if part of Canon's motivation for these improvements was to enhance video. I have to disable I.S. on my 70-200 f/4 L IS because it's so loud that it drowns out the location sound.

[Abu Lafya]

Also wondering if the consistent gradual decrease in off-center samples is a hint that basically this lens is sharp only in it's center, or perhaps I don't understand what "Location about 20% into the top/left of the frame" means.

[Benjamin]

Great review! Very informative especially with the comparisons.


Here Canon has made a great lens, I wonder how the Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC will stand against it. A f/2.8 is more attractive to me personally than extended range, but of course this preference has to be based on identical image quality and AF performance. Looking forward to the Tamron review!


Thanks Bryan for all the effort in putting this review together =)

[Oren]

Seems like a great lens - I'm impressed (and jealous).


Bryan - it's hard to judge from small web pictures so I need your help here: is it possible that the lens' IQ on a 1.6 body is better than the 24-105 (maybe 24-70 too) on the same body? (more specifically, on a 50D or a 7D)

[jimr]

A much anticipated review for me. Although reviewed on the new 7D I would have liked to see how it preformed on some of the more economical and general consumer Cameras like the rebel line (XSi, T1i, etc) which seems to be the target audience of this lens. Although the 7D has become the new de facto standard for the APS-C sized sensors cameras.


I do like the the Lens Review Comparisons... I personnel tend to shot with a lot of natural light and low light which makes me wish this lens was f/2.8. The biggest comparison in my mind is the 17-55 lens. The review does a nice balance of the two as each has their respective advantages which make the choice between the two that much harder. The one thing is the price of the 17-55 has been pretty constant and I can only hope the 15-85 will drop in price by time the summer 2010 roles around. If the price for the 15-85 was around $499 I would see it as the clear winner because of the price.


Thanks for the review, I enjoyed reading it and re-reading it.

[Bryan Carnathan]

Oren - I have been using mostly the EF-S 17-55 and EF-S 15-85 on the APS-C bodies when I need general purpose focal length ranges. Neither has the build quality or full frame compatibility of the 24-70 and 24-105 L lenses, but both have the image quality I'm looking for (at least as good) along with an often-better-for-APS-C focal length range.


I would love to see the 24-70 f/2.8 L offered with IS - that is an obviousfeature advantage held by the the 17-55. Being full frame lenses, the L's will show less vignetting at wide open apertures than the EF-S lenses when mounted on APS-C bodies.