Printable View
I am thinking about the Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM to replace my kit lens on my T2i for general shooting, hiking, landscapes, etc. The reviews on this site are good. Does anybody have any experience with one? I am thinking of choosing this over the 24-105L because of the wider field at 15mm. I also have the 100mm IS USM L macro (which is quite fun!)
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty
Great choice. The 15-85's main criticism is its distortion, but the 24-105 is even worse in this regard and you're not using it for architectural photography. Others might suggest the 17-55 but for outdoor shooting the 15-85 is superior.
-brendan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan7
Actually, Brendan, that's not correct. The distortion is worse on the 24-105mm on FF compared to the 15-85mm on a 1.6x crop. But, since the 24-105mm is an EF lens with a full-frame image circle, much of the distortion is effectively cropped away on the smaller sensor, so the 24-105mm is noticeably less distorted on a 1.6x body, compared to the 15-85mm.
By the numbers:
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"]EF-S 15-85mm (on 1.6x) - 3.15% barrel distortion @15mm
EF 24-105mm f/4L on 1.6x - 1.8% barrel distortion @24mm
EF 24-105mm f/4L on FF - 4.28%barrel distortion @24mm
But, the recommendation is good - for an outdoor walkaround lens, the 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 is a good choice, good IQ, broad focal length range, and the slow and variable aperture isn't a big issue in daylight. The 24-105mm is not really wide enough as a general purpose lens on a crop body, and definitely not wide enough as a landscape lens. The 24-105mm plus the EF-S 10-22mm makes a nice (but expensive) combination.
Marty, the only thing I'd suggest is that if you've done much non-macro shooting with theEF 100mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LMacro IS USM (I have one, and agree that it's really fun lens!), check over your EXIF data to see what apertures you have used. If you find yourself using f/2.8 or f/4 a lot for non-macro shooting, or you plan to do a lot of indoor shooting, you might consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. Since you've got the 100mm macro lens, you have something that sits a reasonable focal distance above the long end of the 17-55mm.
But, on the whole I think the 15-85mm would make a great outdoor general purpose lens. If you need to use it indoors occasionally, paired with an external Speedlite like the 430EX II it will do just fine.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
John, Brendan-
Thanks for the detailed replies. I think I will stick with the 15-85mm and maybe later this year get the 70-200mm f4 IS L for the long run.
Marty
I have the 15-85 and I agree with both John and Brendan: it is a great outdoor lens. The only issue I have is that it is not wide enough for indoor ambient pictures; the 17-55 is much better in this regard.
Personally, I chose the 15-85 because of the focal length range: alot of pictures can be taken in this range. At the wide end 15mm is actually noticably wider than 17mm and the extra 20mm at the long end comes in quite handy.
The 70-200 f4 IS is also a great choice, particularly if you don't have the funds for the 2.8 or want something a bit more portable.
Stephen
Interesting mention of the 70-200mm f/4 L IS under this topic. I just bought a T2i (my first foray into DSLRs, having owned P&S digitals and 35mm pro gear years before that). No kit lens, but decided to go for broke with the L zoom. Now I am considering a general purpose lens to round out a basic arsenal, and have been closely looking at the 15-85mm.
I'm such a digital noob that I look forward to all the information shared in this community (just joined!). Thanks all!
Alan
Welcome, Alan!
Great lens choice, and the T2i is a nice camera. What do you mainly shoot? IMO, the ideal use of the 15-85mm is outdoors; indoors, you'll often need a flash with that lens, due to it's relatively narrow maximum aperture. WhenStephen commented on the 15-85mm being, "not wide enough for indoor ambient pictures,"he was referring to the aperture. The 15-85mm is a variable aperture lens (max aperture gets narrower as you zoom to longer focal lengths), so by 18mm it's at f/4 (same as your 70-200mm), and over 60mm it's at f/5.6 (with intermediate steps in between; see the lens specifications). A lens with an f/5.6 maximum aperture is considered 'slow'.
The lens I usually recommend as the ideal general purpose zoom on a 1.6x FOVCF body like yours is theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. The aperture is fast (f/2.8s are the fastest zooms in Canon's lineup), and constant through the zoom range. The zoom range is shorter, which means less distortion at the wide end (a zoom range over ~5x is a tough optical challenge for designers, and compromises must be made). Although there is a noticeable difference between 15mm and 17mm, 17mm is wide enough for general-purpose use. If you really want an ultra wide angle lens on a 1.6x body, you need something like the EF-S 10-22mm. Since you have the 70-200mm, I don't think you'll miss the 55-70mm range. But, it's more expensive than the 15-85mm (not surprising, though - with f/2.8, you're paying for a lot more glass).
Welcom to the forum Alan!
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
That's exactly what I meant! Thanks for clarifying John.
Thanks for the warm welcome all!
I'm a digital SLR noob, but I've had 35mm experience back in the day. Brass-bodied Canon F1 (with the full 180 degree film advance lever), 50mm kit, 24mm & 100mm lens. Add to it a Vivitar flash and Bogen tripod. I shot mostly Kodachrome, both 25 and 64, and had enlargers on two occasions. Souped my own negatives and prints... even made my own albumen silver paper for a school project! I studied the old masters (Adams, Stieglitz, Cunningham, White, Ray, Weston, Lange... et al) so my involvement was on the fine art end of the spectrum.
What I like to shoot? I would say landscape, nature, and anything with graphic representation... but I'd like to keep my options open as I rediscover photography in the digital age. Wow, silicon replacing silver and computers replacing darkrooms.
Back to the topic at hand: believe me, I'm intrigued by both the 15-85mm and 17-55mm lens through the testing provided by Bryan. I agree that I will probably not miss the gap between the 17-55mm and 70-200mm, but would like to have a 15mm at the short end. It'd be nice to have the widerfixed f/2.8 aperture tho'. My wallet's thin, and thinner yet now that I've spent an exorbitant amount to get started in DSLR photography. That has me leaning toward the bang-for-buck 15-85mm ($400 or $500 cheaper!). Money talks!
Ciao!