Originally Posted by bburns223
Let me start with two words: "variable aperture." I suspect that if you do get that lens, you're in for some disappointment, especially as a self-confessed aperture junkie. From Bryan's review: "The Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens is not a fast lens and has a variable maximum aperture. Here is how the max aperture step-down goes: from 15-17mm = f/3.5, 18-26mm = f/4.0, 27-37mm = f/4.5, 38-60mm = f/5.0 and from 61-85mm = f/5.6." Longer than 27mm, and you're already slower than your 300mm prime.
You mentioned indoor portraits - not a great use for theEF-S 15-85mm, you'd likely be shooting those in the 50-85mm part of the range, and f/5-f/5.6 isn't going to do very well for OOF blur at portrait distances with that focal length. Also, since I know you shoot manual much of the time, you're really not going to like that a variable aperture changes the necessary exposure as you zoom.
Let me provide one more plug for f/2.8, with the caveat that this is with a lens that's not ideal for the general purpose lens you have in mind. I captured this grab-shot of a visitor in our yard earlier this tonight. The pic was shot with your option #3 lens, theEF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM. The shot was taken 30 minutes after sunset (pretty darn dark, stars were already visible in the deep blue/black skies). This washandheld at 200mm and1/13 second!
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.35.15/Hop.jpg[/img]
EOS 7D,EF 70-200mm f/2.8<span style="color: red;"]LIS II USM @ 200mm, f/2.8, 1/13 s, ISO 3200
That's a shot that wouldn't have been possible with a slower aperture (nor without an excellent IS system in the lens and a body that performs decently at ISO 3200). Did I mention that the 70-200 MkII is an amazing lens?!?
Anyway, back to the point - I don't think you'll be happy with anything wider than f/4, and for your general purpose lens, I'd really recommend going with f/2.8 if you plan to use it indoors, or want the typical portrait OOF blur, even outdoors. At focal lengths less than 100mm, you need a rather wide aperture to get that desirable OOF blur.
I'd go back to your original debate of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 vs. EF 24-105mm f/4L, and as I stated, my opinion there is in favor of the 17-55mm. For myself, I'm still considering theEF 24-105mm f/4L, but that's only because I already have theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8. If I had to choose between them, it would be theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8, no question.
Good luck with your decision!
--John
Reply With Quote