15-85 vs 17-55

[cxr]

What would be a good walkaround lens between the two? I know the 17-55 has an advantage of having a constant aperture of 2.8, but there are many reviews saying that the image quality of the 15-85 in nearly the same as the 17-55. What are your thoughts?

[DavidEccleston]

Judging by Bryan's reviews and ISO chart crops, they're both excellent lenses, IQ wise.





You need to determine which is more important to you:


1. 17-55mm - thinner minimum DOF, low-light shots, smaller zoom range. A bit more expensive.


2. 15-85mm - wider minimum DOF, good outdoors, no so much in low-light without flash. Larger zoom range. A bit cheaper.





If you have an off-camera flash, go for the 15-85. You'll get your light from the flash when needed, and have extra zoom range, and some cash in pocket.


If you tend to take shots outdoors in daylight, go for the 15-85.


If you require the thin DOF, or lower light capabilities go with the 17-55. Another option to enhance your low-light capabilities further is to go with 15-85mm for daylight and putting the savings towards a prime like the 50mm f/1.4 for evening/indoors/thin DOF shots.


NOTE: I have neither of these lenses, so this isn't based on experience!

[elmo_2006]

Hi cxr...


I would have to argue with IQ of the two lenses you have mentioned. The Canon 17-55 2.8 is pretty much a 'sheep in wolf's clothing'. The IQ of this lens rates at or above some L desginated lenses and is a highly sought after lens.


The 15-85 is a good everyday lens which Bryan has confirmed via review. I personally am not a fan of the 'double trombone' design, there is no word yet, if after use and over time, the lens barrel will begin to wobble and loosen. My 28-135 is a similar design and has long been sold!


I think there is no straight answer but possibly suggestions. How and what will you be photographing? Will you be taking photos after dark, sports photos, inside outside, budget constraints, wildlife.....I hope you see where I'm going with this....If you are taking photos of typical fauna or lakeside or children at play and maybe some wildlife, have a look at the 18-200 you end upgaining 115mm on the long end while sacrificing 3mm on the wide end.


Hope this helps.....[:$]

[neuroanatomist]

...there are many reviews saying that the image quality of the 15-85 in nearly the same as the 17-55.

In terms of sharpness, yes. But, being a >5x zoom lens, the 15-85mm suffers significantly more from distortion than the 17-55mm (and of course, the 18-200mm lens which elmo_2006 mentioned is even worse).


It does really depend on what you mean by 'walking around'. If you actually mean walking around on the street or on a trail, taking daytime pictures, then the 15-85 will be a good choice. If you mean 'walk-around lens' in the sense of the lens that stays on your camera most of the time, it depends more on what you take pictures of, and what other lenses you have or plan to get. If you'll shoot indoors and want to use natural light, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is a better choice. If you don't mind using a flash (don't use the built-in pop-up flash, please!) and don't need the out-of-focus blur capability of f/2.8, you can get the 15-85mm plus a 430EX II flash for about the same cost (a little less, actually) as the 17-55mm lens.

[cxr]

thanks everyone! actually i have the 430EX II and been playing with it for a while now. i was thinking of getting the 17-55 because of its constant aperture but the 15-85 i think has a very good range. acutally, what i meant by "walkaround" is that the lens will be in my camera most of the time.


on the other hand, i bumped onto the 24-105. i must say i'm considering this as well mainly because i have the 10-22 for most of my wide angle shots and i was thinking if the 10-22 & 24-105 would be a good combo for a cropped body.


i like the 15-85 because of its versatility.


i like the 17-55 because of the f2.8 constant aperture but i find the range a bit short and expensive as well considering not an L lens.


i am considering the 24-105 because i have the 10-22 covered.


isthe 24-105 any good on acropped body?


suggestions & opinions are welcome..thanks!

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, the 24-105mm f/4L is excellent on a crop body. It's a 'relatively' inexpensive L lens, which is good, because with the shorter L's (e.g. the 16-35mm f/2.8L) a lot of what you're paying is better IQ at the edges of the full frame, and those don't matter with a crop body. The main problem with the 24-105mm on a crop body is that the wide end isn't wide, but as long as you're willing to change lenses you'd have that covered with the 10-22mm. For me, I could not leave the 24-105mm on my camera most of the time, as I frequently grab my camera to take pics of my young daughter in the house, and I need wider that 24mm for some of that. So, for me, the 17-55mm f/2.8 is the ideal 'leave on the camera' lens (a bit more reach would be nice, but I'm not willing to trade f/2.8 or the wide end for that).


As a side note, when asking for lens advice it often helps to list the other lenses you have, either in your post or in your Bio.

[bigflying]

I have owned both len the 17-55, the 15-85 and also the Tamron 17-50 /2.8.Review your photos and track your aperture history. I have had everything from a Sig 30 f/1.4 to a Canon 200 f/2.8. I did not need a fast lens at this range. But I wanted a leave on, tote aroundlens. This new 15-85 is heaven sent for my needs. Some notes


<span style="color: #0000ff;"]Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS

• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]as advertised .... v nice build, USM, IS, sharp - vg at 2.8, exc at 4..... but I sold because of:
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]indoor at 2.8 nice but you will not use all the time because ofshallow depth of field
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]disappointing, inconsistent low light shots
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]little heavy on my XSI,
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]too expensive for my wallet to tote around as my gen purpose lens

<span style="color: #0000ff;"]Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens

• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]very happy with package - sharpness, size, great value
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]sharp- gd at 2.8, but generally stopping down tof/4 vg/exc - sharp as Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]where is the IS? once you've been stabilized, its like cheating (new IS coming out but may not be such a value)

<span style="color: #0000ff;"]Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-6.5 IS

• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]extremely happy with package - sharpness, size, range, IS, value for $exc
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]touch lighter, inch shorter than 17-55 - better weighted for my XSi
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]nice indoor low light, I don&rsquo;t miss 2.8/ 4 (not trying indoor action)
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]don't have to stop down - sharp results wide open (of course wide open might be 5.6!!
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]But here's the deal for me: getting results assharp as any other, and, reliably consistent results
• <span style="color: #0000ff;"]the range (on both ends) will totally spoil me - I&rsquo;ll laugh at 17-55/2.8 24-105/4

[divine_evo]

I did a 10-22 and 24-105 combo with a 40d before and I loved it. My gear was stolen and i'm planning on going with a 11-16 tokina, efs 17-55, and 70-200 now. My old gear was stolen from me so i'm planning on going the full 2.8 route.


I had the 24-105 on the 40d about all of the time unless I was doing a specific portrait/wedding/event shoot. if you are going for a general lens I say the 24-105 but that is just me. I plan on purchasing another 24-105 with a 5d when I can afford it.

[clemmb]

I have a 24-105. I started with an XTi and an XT as backup shooting weddings. Love the 24-105. The only time I had trouble was with the 24 being not wide enough in doors. You have that covered.


Almost all my photos are shot with the 24-105


Mark

[cxr]

Thanks guys! Any idea with the distortion &amp; vignetting issue of the 24-105 on a cropped frame body? Is it as bad in the full frame body? Would the 10-22 &amp; 24-70 much better or 10-22 &amp; 24-105? I like the IS because it really helps in camera shake and I don't know if canon will ever put IS on the 24-70. I find the IS more relevant to me than the f2.8, having said that I would like to have a lens with fixed 2.8 aperture.