15-85mm or 18-200mm

I'm looking to buy a general "Walk-Around" lens. I've been eyeballing the Canon 15-85mm f/3.6-5.6 IS USM and the Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. I can pick up the 18-200mm for 400 buck, practically new via Craigslist on my home from Florida. Should I just wait it out and save the extra $200-$250 for the 15-85? I know there is a different in image quality, as far as what I have read from the reviews. Anyone have experince with these lenses?





I currently own a Canon T2i with the Kit lens 18-55mm and a 55-250mm f/3.5-5.6 and the Nifty Fifty 50mm 1.8.





Thanks in advance.

I own the 15-85. It is a great lens. I do not have any direct experience with the 18-200, but based on the reviews I've read, I recommend upgrading your general purpose lens to the 15-85. You have the longer lengths covered with the 55-250 mm which is similar to better optical quality in comparison to the 18-200. So the 15-85 would be a good step up in optical quality over your current kit and still covers a very useful range.You would then have 15-250 mm covered with the two lenses.


I regard the 15-85 and the 17-55 f/2.8 as optically the best EFS lenses. The 17-55 has a significant advantage in aperture and the 15-85 has an advantage in focal length range. I think either would be a great general purpose lens for your kit.

The 18-200mm is very versatile, but that versatility comes at the cost of image quality. If you're happy with the quality of your current two lenses, and want to spend $400 for the convenience of not having to change them, it's a decent choice (altough there will be much more barrel distortion at 18mm with the 18-200mm than with your 18-55mm. Personally, I tried out the 18-200mm on my 7D and was not happy with the results (also, in my quick test of the lens, the 200mm end wasn't 200mm - Bryan's review puts it at 174mm, and in my comparison to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, assuming 200mm on the L zoom is actually 200mm, the 18-200mm's long end had the field of view of ~154mm).


The 15-85mm lens is a step up in image quality from the kit lenses and the 18-200mm. Personally, I'd recommend the 15-85mm over the 18-200mm. The 15-85mm is a great outdoor walkaround lens. It's slow aperture means you'll want to use a flash indoors, ideally an external Speedlite like a 430EX II. The 17-55mm is also an excellent lens, but you're paying a fair bit more for the constant f/2.8 aperture.


Hope that helps...


--John

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

regard the 15-85 and the 17-55 f/2.8 as optically the best EFS lenses.

---

I agree, and I'd add the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 lens to that list as well (though as an ultrawide it's not suitable as a general purpose zoom). All three offer essentially equivalent image quality to many L-series lenses, although the have lower build quality.

I keep telling myself 15 mm is wide enough. But as soon as my funds replenish, I may have to take a look at the 10-22.


Thanks John.


Brant

I really liked it on my 7D, and only sold it when I got the 5DII and 16-35mm f/2.8L II. The combination of f/2.8 and the better ISO performance of the 5DII mean the combination is great for interior shots. But, in fact the 10-22mm at 10mm has a lot less distortion than the 16-35mm at 16mm on FF.

I agree with both Grant and John: the 15-85 is the better choice for image quality. I also have this lens and find it to be excellent, keeping in mind John's comment about needing a flash indoors. But for a general purpose outdoor lens (or travel lens) the 15-85 is ideal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I keep telling myself 15 mm is wide enough. But as soon as my funds replenish, I may have to take a look at the 10-22.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I keep thinking the same thing! Only lately I've started to become bothered with the distortion at 15mm. I only notice it when there are vertical lines near the frame edges, but lately I've been traveling in large cities....naturally this requries having tall buildings near the edges of the frame quite often. I'm hoping that the 10-22 would show less distortion in the range. I'd also really like to try out a tilt shift lens, but I'm not sure my wife has the patience to wait with me on the side of the street trying to compose a shot with a TS lens while on vacation!


Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

I'm hoping that the 10-22 would show less distortion in the range. I'd also really like to try out a tilt shift lens, but I'm not sure my wife has the patience to wait with me on the side of the street trying to compose a shot with a TS lens while on vacation!

---

Much less. Photozone.de measures the barrel distortion of the 15-85mm at 15mm as 3.15%, while barrel distortion with the 10-22mm at 10mm is only 1.21%. At 14mm, the 10-22mm has essentially no distortion.


With a TS-E lens, composing and focusing a shot with tilt applied is more difficult, but for architectural corrections using shift it's quite possible to shoot handheld and 'on the fly' using LiveView. The shot below was taken from the middle ofTiananmen Square, handheld with about +8 shift:



[url="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr_brain/5514694920/in/set-72157626236227536/lightbox/]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/...87c51c2f_z.jpg[/url]
EOS 5D Mark II, TS-E 24mm f/3.5<span style="color: #ff0000;"]L II, 1/1250 s, f/4, ISO 100


The whole thing took about a minute, with almost all of that time spent swinging around my Lowepro Flipside 400AW and changing from the 24-105mm to the TS-E, then back to the 24-105mm after the shot.

Thanks for the info John. You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

How do you find the TS-E 24? I would think that focal length would be the most useful for my style of shooting.

---

It's a great lens, and a lot of fun. I feel like I haven't explored it's full potential yet, though - there are lots of possible adjustments! I debated 24mm vs. 17mm and decided on 24mm - 17mm is wider than I usually shoot (although I have the 16-35mm if I want to go wider). If I was shooting a 1.6x body, I'd likely have gone for the 17mm. My main use for the TS-E is landscapes and buildings from the exterior; the 17mm would be good for interior shots, I think. I think I would have ended up doing a lot of cropping with the 17mm version. Other than a quick test, I haven't used mine with the 1.4x extender, but the combo works fine so that's a way to alter the FOV of a TS-E lens if you have a teleconverter.

Thanks John. I didn't realize the TS lens' were compatible with extenders; that's good to know. I do have the 1.4 II teleconverter. I still think the 24 would be the best focal length for me...I seem to use that length alot on my zooms.


FYI, here is an example of the distortion in the 15-85....note this was taken pretty much just as an example to see for myself how bad the distortion could be in certain circumstances.[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/6811.Lens-Distortion.JPG[/img]


This was at 15mm, ISO 100, F8 and 1/50s. Straight out of the camera; no PP. Clearly illustrates the need to keep straight lines away from the edges of the frame when at the widest focal lengths. If you don't use the widest focal lengths and/or keep straight lines near the centre of the frame then the distortion is not nearly so much of anissue. Here is another example:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/8/5165.Big-Ben-_2600_-London-Eye.JPG[/img]


This was at 24mm, ISO 100, F8 and 1/60s. Minor PP adjustments in DPP. I think this shows less distortion and is acceptable to me as a personal vacation photo (I'm not a pro and just take pictures for my own use).


And of course, when there are no straight lines in the frame at all (ie no buildings) then I don't find the distortion noticable at all. This usually works well for me since where I'm from there are no tall buildings or large cities...just miles and miles of wilderness ;)


Nevertheless, the distortion is the only real issue I have with this lens. But it does detract from one of the key assets of this lens (the wide focal length range) and has me considering other lens. I'd like to justify the 17-55, but I think I would miss the focal length range (both wide and telephoto). If I did that then I'd definately want the 10-22 for the wide end. I've already got the 70-200 F4 IS so the telephoto end is OK. And as mentioned I'd love to have a TS to play with and get some better arch-type shots of some taller buildings!


Lots to consider when next I go lens hunting!


Stephen

R.Acevedo,


Despite the examples of issues with the 15-85, I still recommend it. Really, it is part of "knowing your lens". The 15-85 is very good, not perfect. My experience is that thereis some barrel distortion at 15 mm (3.14% measured by photozone.de), but that it quickly goes away (24 mm they measured 0.581%). My experience the issues with vignetting and barrel distortion diminish by 18 mm (not measured by photozone.de). Also, for comparison to the other lens you mentioned, the 18-200 mm, photozone.demeasured 4.48% barrel distortion at 18 mm.


As a question for Stephen/others, is there more than one type of distortion going on inthe photo of Big Ben at 15 mm? It is certainly extreme. I am wondering ifpart of it is"convergence of parrallel lines"?A perspective issue?


Thanks,


Brant

Wide lenses are always blamed for "distortion". Although there may be some barrel distortion in the above images I don

Thanks to everyone for their input. I am definitely going to go with the 15-85. I

I don't know, Mark... Looking at the first image of Big Ben, I see both perspective distortion (the lean in the clock tower) and barrel distortion (the curve in the clock tower).


Here's an example from my recent trip, shot with the 5DII and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS @ 24mm, which has what photozone.de refers to as 'massive barrel distortion' at the wide end (measured as 4.3%). The left image is a DPP conversion with no corrections applied, the right image is a DxO conversion which corrects for the barrel distortion(DxO also improves the lighting). You can see that the perspective distortion is present in both images, but in the uncorrected image on the left the lines on the ceiling appear to converge (yes, perspective causes convergence too, but not over a distance of 15 feet), the transverse beams on the ceiling 'frown', the vertical columns bow outward, and the altar and table in front appear to 'smile'. Those effects are all due to the barrell dostirtion of the lens, and the spatial correction applied by DxO removes those effects.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-35-15/Barrel-Distortion.jpg[/img]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Acevedo

I am definitely going to go with the 15-85. I'm really looking for a better quality image while still having some freedom of a decent focal range. In time i think I may make a dive for the 17-55 for the wider aperture. Time will tell if will be something I need.

---

I have the 17-55mm and it's a great lens. But, I wouldn't advise having both the 15-85mm and the 17-55mm in the same kit - too much overlap. I suggest you'd be better off looking to a fast prime after the 15-85mm. Keep in mind that while f/2.8 is the fastest zoom lens Canon makes, an f/1.4 prime lets in 4 times as much light.

John,


Your example is a much better one. What I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

What I'd like to see is two pictures taken with lenses having different amounts of barrel distortion but in the example itself having zero perspective distortion. If you get bored maybe you could show us since I "think" you have two lenses that would apply

---

Yep, the 24-105mm @ 24mm vs. the TS-E 24mm which is about as undistorted as you'll find at that focal length. The only examples I have of the same scene shot with both are where the TS-E corrects for both (perspective corrected with shift), but I'll find a bit of time to shoot a straight-on comparison which will isolate the barrel distortion component in a 'real world' setting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Acevedo

I am definitely going to go with the 15-85. I'm really looking for a better quality image while still having some freedom of a decent focal range. In time i think I may make a dive for the 17-55 for the wider aperture. Time will tell if will be something I need.

---

I have the 17-55mm and it's a great lens. But, I wouldn't advise having both the 15-85mm and the 17-55mm in the same kit - too much overlap. I suggest you'd be better off looking to a fast prime after the 15-85mm. Keep in mind that while f/2.8 is the fastest zoom lens Canon makes, an f/1.4 prime lets in 4 times as much light.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Got ya, thank you. I suppose my 50mm 1.8 would do for now.

There is also the Canon 18-135 that I forgot about. Any thoughts on that one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Despite the examples of issues with the 15-85, I still recommend it. Really, it is part of "knowing your lens".
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Don't get me wrong: I still definately recommend this lens. I have it and I use it all the time. I agree that it is totally an issue of "knowing your lens" and working within the limitations of your equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

As a question for Stephen/others, is there more than one type of distortion going on inthe photo of Big Ben at 15 mm? It is certainly extreme. I am wondering ifpart of it is"convergence of parrallel lines"?A perspective issue?

---

I agree: there is likely other distortion types in this picture as well. In any case, I don't find this to be acceptable and was only trying to use this as an example of the types of things I need to activly look out for when using this lens at the wide end.


Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

The photographer is to blame here, not the lens.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Thanks Mark! [:P]


This wasn't meant to be a great shot, as mentioned I was just taking this pic for my own curiosity looking at the distortion.


Whether this is barrel distortion or mostly perspective distortion I'm not entirely sure. I definately agree that this pic does show perspective distortion, but I also thought this was barrel distortion as well. Maybe I'm wrong. But I have noticed (albiet I haven't done a direct scientific comparison) that at the extreme wide angles of this lens (ie 15-17mm) there seems to be some distortion of straight lines near the edges of the frame. Perhaps this is also perspective distortion, but it does seem to improve as with slightly longer focal lengths. Unless I really need the wide angle I try not to go wider than 20mm and this seems to help with the issue.


Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Acevedo

There is also the Canon 18-135 that I forgot about. Any thoughts on that one?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

I believe the 18-135 is slightly better than the 18-200 for image quality, but the 15-85 is still the better lens. I don't think you'll be disapointed with this choice.


Stephen

Ok, thanks again. I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

The photographer is to blame here, not the lens.
<div style="CLEAR:both;"]</div>

---

Thanks Mark! [img]/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

---

I didn't mean you specifically :-) I was just making a general statement. Sometimes you can't back up any more and the only way to capture the entire scene is to tilt the camera up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFLD Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

Despite the examples of issues with the 15-85, I still recommend it. Really, it is part of "knowing your lens".
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Don't get me wrong: I still definately recommend this lens. I have it and I use it all the time. I agree that it is totally an issue of "knowing your lens" and working within the limitations of your equipment.

---

Stephen.....yep, I thought all along that your shots were simply "test" shots, really, to get to know your lens. As this thread was originally about selecting one lens over another, I didn't want the OP or others to think that was a typical shot out of the 15-85 at 15 mm.


On another side note, I am beginning to think I need to get DxO software. So many photography things to buy......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I am beginning to think I need to get DxO software. So many photography things to buy....

---

Always! But I look at it this way: Do you use the same lens for every shot? Do you use a flash for every shot? Probably not. A good piece of post-processing software can improve every shot you take. In particular for noise, DxO does a great job (at least vs. DPP, from my previous testing).

Purchased the 15-85mm today via eBay. New condition came with a Promaster UV filter and lens hood. Should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. $701 shipped.

I think that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Acevedo

Purchased the 15-85mm today via eBay. New condition came with a Promaster UV filter and lens hood. Should be here Tuesday or Wednesday. $701 shipped.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Congrats. That is great. I think you will be very happy with that set up.


Others may know who makes the Promaster UV filter and how good it is, but that is the one thing I would suggest checking. Just aim the lens at a light at a slight angle and snap a picture with it on and with it off and compare. You might also take a few other pictures of a subject with detail in it. Many UV filters are very good. Some, not. And you don't want a UV filter to impede the quality of the lens. Many here use B+W MRC filters.


Here are some example photos:


15-85 with "Canon" UV filter (cheap UV filter)


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-Light_2D00_Canon-Glass-Filter.JPG[/img]


B+W MRC UV filter


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-light_2D00_B_2B00_W-MRC.JPG[/img]


No UV filter, just the lens:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Components-UserFiles/00-00-00-46-64-test/Direct-light_2D00_no-UV-filter.JPG[/img]

Thanks, I

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Elberson

What I'd like to see is two pictures taken with lenses having different amounts of barrel distortion but in the example itself having zero perspective distortion. If you get bored maybe you could show us since I "think" you have two lenses that would apply

---

Yep, the 24-105mm @ 24mm vs. the TS-E 24mm which is about as undistorted as you'll find at that focal length. The only examples I have of the same scene shot with both are where the TS-E corrects for both (perspective corrected with shift), but I'll find a bit of time to shoot a straight-on comparison which will isolate the barrel distortion component in a 'real world' setting.

---

Comparison shot and posted in the Barrel Distortion thread.

Got the lens today. The UV filter it came with is a Promaster HGX UV 72mm after looking online, my uneducated guess is that this is a very good filter and definitely not a cheap one.

Congrats on the lens! I would test the filter as previously suggested in this thread (by Brant, IIRC without going back a page). Promaster does not make filters (or anything else). They sell re-branded products, and in the case of filters, the OEM is Hoya. Hoya makes several lines of filters, sone of which are optically good (as good as B+W, but reportedly harder to clean). But, Hoya also makes some lines that are of pretty poor quality. Which line is rebranded as Promaster HGX? I don