Printable View
So i have a canon rebel t2i and the kit lens and want a better lens and im planning on upgrading to a FF body like the canon 5d mark II in 3-5 years.I want a general purpose lens and i was debating either to buy the 15-85mm now then sell it in 3-5 years than buy the 17-40mm or just buy the 17-40mm now? do you think i will need IS if im shooting outdoors with lots of light? Thanks :) i look forward to the answers
-Caleb
P:S Im new to this forum
With lots of light, no, you wouldn
Caleb,
Welcome to the forum!
I have the 15-85 on a 7D and would recommend the EFS 15-85 to anyone with a crop sensor body. The lens is very sharp, the IS is great (I routinely shoot 1/2 sec at 15 mm and 1/10 sec at 85 mm and get mostly keepers), and the focal range is very useful. Also, from 17-40, the 15-85 has a minimumaperture of f/3.5 from 15-24, f/4 from 24-35 and f/4.5 from 35 mm to 50 mm, thus the minimum aperture of the two lenses in the 17-40 mm focal range is very similar. So all that you would be gaining with the 17-40 is a red ring, weather sealing (but your body isn't weather sealed), and the ability to go FF with in 3-5 yrs (by which time who knows how good the crop camera bodies will be). And you lose 40-85 mm, which is a highly useful focal range (on a crop body, it includes most of the "portrait" range).
My recommendation between those two would be the EFS 15-85. If you want to consider a second lens, the EFS 17-55 is often recommended here on the forum and has excellent reviews. I have heard so many good things about it, I have considered buying it to have in addition to the EFS 15-85. The advantage it has is a constant f/2.8 aperture versus the greater focal range of the EFS 15-85.
BTW, for IS outdoors, think waterfalls. Water starts to blur ~1/15 of a second and you start getting really nice wispy looking water by 1/2 second exposure. So you can shoot waterfalls hand held. There are other instances where I find the IS beneficial for outdoors, such as shooting in twilight(not the movie), under tree canopies, etc.
Good luck with your decision!
Brant
+1 for the 15-85.
Ialso have this lens and agree with Brant's assessment and recommendation. Excellent quality glass. My only caveat is that if you need a faster appature you may want to consider the 17-55with similar image quality and a fixed 2.8 appature at the expense of a more limited focal length range and higher cost. (Check Bryan's reviews for the more detailed specifics [:P]).
Keep in mind that 3-5 years is a long time away! There could be any number of new lenses (or cameras) before then that may sway your upgrade plans. In the meantime, think of what you need now to get great shots until you upgrade to FF. I'm not active in the used lens market, but IMOan investment in good quality glass is never a bad idea. Good lenses keep there value quite well and I've heard of people selling used lenses for near what they originally paid (and in some cases even more). My vote is to purchase what you need (want) now. Always smart to keep an eye on your future upgrade plans, but alot can change in 3-5 years!
Stephen
Welcome, Caleb!
I see you found a previous post or two on this subject. I'd skip the 17-40mm for now. Get the right lens(es) for the camera you have, unless you're sure you'll move to FF very soon (i.e. <1 year).
For an excellent quality general purpose zoom for an APS-C body, your options from Canon are really limited to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS. The choice between the two primarily comes down to what you need the lens for - the 15-85mm is best suited as an outdoor walkaround lens, while the 17-55mm is suited for use indoors and out, but you sacrifice some zoom range. IQ of the two lenses is functionally equivalent. Since you have been using the 18-55mm kit lens for some time, you can probably judge which would be more useful to you - longer reach or faster aperture.
<div>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
I can see the rationale for that. On FF/1.3x cameras, many people have a similar decision to Caleb's 17-55 vs. 15-85mm - theanalagouschoice is between the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS. There, it's a little tougher because the faster lens lacks IS - and many people do end up owning both lenses.
One other thought - even though f/2.8 is the fastest zoom lens available, often that's right at the edge of indoor/low light use (especially on a crop body where the high ISO noise is worse). For that reason, the combination of a slower zoom with more range with faster primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8, etc.) is something to consider.
</div>
Welcome to TDP Caleb,
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
--+1 for what Neuro has mentioned here. And +1for skipping the 17-40 L for now. The 50 f/1.4 is great for low light, indoor shooting, and the combo with the 15-85mm would be functional for you, I think.
Good luck with your decision and happy shooting,
Damian
Thanks! really helped alot :) im going to go for the 15-85mm since i dont need the fast aperture but i want the longer reach :)
Thanks for the advice
Thanks for helping me make my mind evreyone you alll had some really good advice to give :) im going for the 15-85mm good combo with my 50mm 1.8 as neuroanatomist said i agree Thanks for the support !
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLS
Thanks for the suggestions....That is the direction I ended up going (with some input from everyone here at TDP last fall [Y]). I started off with getting the 100 mm f/2.8 macro in February. Not the fastest prime, but I didn't have a macro lens so I figured that would be a good place to start. Next I can see upgrading my 50 mm f/1.8 II and getting something in the 30-35 mm ~f/1.4 range. But that is for later on. I am pretty happy with my kit right now.
Caleb...glad that we helped. I am sure you'll love the EFS 15-85.
Thanks everyone,
Brant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kayaker72
Ditto!
Caleb, it'd be great to see some shots with your new glass when you have some!
Damian
Oh ya.....and GO Canucks GO!! Lol, sorry, couldn