15-85mm or 18-200mm

[R.Acevedo]

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.

[Kayaker72]

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.

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[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.


Thanks John.


Brant

[neuroanatomist]

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.

[NFLD Stephen]

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.

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

[neuroanatomist]

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/][/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.

[neuroanatomist]

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