To 15-85mm IS or not?

[darklord]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]Greetings everyone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] I&rsquo;m new to this board and DSLR in general.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]My question is that is the 15-85mm a good lens for video?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] My setup is:
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]T2i + kit 18-55mm
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]50mm f1.8 (for indoor portraits)
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]70-200mm f2.8 IS (for kids sport and outdoor portraits)
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]What piqued my interest was the current rebate on 15-85mm which makes it more palatable but I have to make the decision before July 10, 2010.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]I am tired of the kit 18-55mm and would like something better.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Of course the 17-55mm has been considered but with the current rebate, I think the 15-85 is more versatile and has a higher price/performance ratio. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]The only thing holding me back is its kit lens type aperture.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: Arial;"]So would the 15-85 be a good travel lens so that I can the bulkier 70-200 at home option? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]How would it do in video especially in lower light indoor situation? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"]Thanks.

[neuroanatomist]

Hello, and welcome to the TDP Forums!


The focal length range of the 15-85mm is quite nice. IQ is good from a sharpness standpoint, less so from a distortion standpoint (&gt;3% barrel distortion at 15mm), but that's normal for a lens with a &gt;5x zoom range.

<span style="font-size:x-small;font-family:Arial;"]The only thing holding me back is its kit lens type aperture.<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;"]...How would it do in video especially in lower light indoor situation?

A very reasonable concern - the 15-85mm does well outdoors. Indoors, with the variable and slow aperture, it does poorly. If you're ok with the speed (meaning aperture) of your kit lens, you'll be fine with the 15-85mm and see significantly improved optics. But if you find the narrow apertures of the kit lens to be a problem, it will be just as much of a problem with the 15-85mm.

I think the 15-85 is more versatile and has a higher price/performance ratio.

I'll leave you with the thoughts of a few others on that issue:

Overall we'd say that the lens is slightly over-priced regarding its performance but eventually the street prices will come down to more sane levels.

I considered it badly overpriced for what it is...Truth is if it was a $450 lens we&rsquo;d be singing its praises. As a $700 lens I find myself underwhelmed.

I think the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a much better lens for your purposes. IMO, it's the best general purpose zoom for a 1.6x crop body. If your experience with the kit lens suggests that you don't need the 18-24mm range, the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS would be another one to consider.

[darklord]

A very reasonable concern - the 15-85mm does well outdoors. Indoors, with the variable and slow aperture, it does poorly. If you're ok with the speed (meaning aperture) of your kit lens, you'll be fine with the 15-85mm and see significantly improved optics. But if you find the narrow apertures of the kit lens to be a problem, it will be just as much of a problem with the 15-85mm.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Specifically in indoor situation both at 50mm, would the 15-85mm give me better video result than the much cheaper50mm f/1.8?


Thanks

[neuroanatomist]

Specifically in indoor situation both at 50mm, would the 15-85mm give me better video result than the much cheaper50mm f/1.8?

Define better. []


It depends on what/how you are shooting. The 50/1.8 @ f/1.8 lets in 8 times as much light as the 15-85mm @ 50mm f/5 (it's max aperture at that focal length) - of course, at f/1.8 the depth of field will be quite thin. The 15-85mm has IS, but if you're shooting from a tripod (a very good idea with video), IS won't help. If you're on a tripod, and have enough light to set the 50mm f/1.8 to f/5 (where it's very sharp), the 15-85mm won't be significantly better (would possibly be worse, in fact). But if you have to go to something like ISO 1600 or 3200 to use f/5 with your lighting, that's not 'better' and a faster lens would be a definite advantage. If you're going to handhold, IS will be a big benefit. Those are the reasons I recommend the 17-55mm - you get the best of all worlds (fast, IS, great IQ even wide open). But it's not a cheap lens...

[Colin500]

If you're going to handhold, IS will be a big benefit.

One experience I made "the hard way": If you shoot video using the internal microphone, the noise made by the IS will likely be a problem.


Cheers, Colin

[darklord]

Thanks, guys. I'll pass up on the 15-85mm for now.





Basically, the 15-85 is a good outdoor but not indoor lens. Since, I already have the 70-200mm for outdoor portraits, I'll just have to bust out the kit 18-55mm for some occasional wide shots. And in indoor, I'll rely on the 50mm f/1.8 for both video and photo which the 15-85mm couldn't do very well anyway because of low light. To me, it's the people and not the scenery that's most valuable to my photography right now so this setup will work.

[neuroanatomist]

And in indoor, I'll rely on the 50mm f/1.8 for both video and photo which the 15-85mm couldn't do very well anyway because of low light.

Unless you provide the light. The 15-85mm will do fine for still photos indoors if you use a flash - not the on-board pop-up flash, which IMO provides terrible lighting, but rather an external Speedlite preferably bounced off the ceiling.


Obviously, a strobe won't work for lighting a video - you'd need continuous lighting for that.


If you prefer ambient light, the 50mm f/1.8 is the way to go. Even f/2.8 can struggle in dim room lighting (which is one reason I recently bought the EF 85mm f/1.2<span style="color: red;"]L II). But, in 'normal' indoor lighting, f/2.8 will work.

[Sheiky]

And in indoor, I'll rely on the 50mm f/1.8 for both video and photo which the 15-85mm couldn't do very well anyway because of low light

Just a thought...for video you could also use your 70-200 inside? 70mm is not that much longer than your 50mm and with the help of IS it is capable of giving you nice steady shots even at slow shutterspeeds, which are not bad at all for video. Also the focus-ring is much more usable than the 50mm's.


For photography indoors the 70-200 ain't that bad either, although you probably would need a flash. Also assuming that you won't shoot at f1.8 with your 50mm, because that's not exactly it's sharpest side..


-Jan

[Flaming]

I might add, if you are interested in taking wide angle shots with relative frequency, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a good lens. A friend on mine bought it after considering many other lenses in that range (including the Canon 17-55mm and 24-70mm). He has been delighted with it in all his shooting. The focus motor is loud if you are used to USM but it isn't that big an issue to me. Even though it is loud it is very snappy and would compete with any lens in the category. This lens does not have IS on it (the IS version is said to be worse optically) and it can be had for $450 easily. Finally the optics are almost as good as the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.


Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in the works.


Samuel

[darklord]

<div>

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]Just a thought...for video you could also use your 70-200 inside? 70mm is not that much longer than your 50mm and with the help of IS it is capable of giving you nice steady shots even at slow shutterspeeds, which are not bad at all for video. Also the focus-ring is much more usable than the 50mm's.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]-Jan


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]

</div>
<div></div>
<div>Good point, AF isn't all that useful in video. I tend to us MF and shoot one small segment at a time.</div>

I might add, if you are interested in taking wide angle shots with relative frequency, the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a good lens. A friend on mine bought it after considering many other lenses in that range (including the Canon 17-55mm and 24-70mm). He has been delighted with it in all his shooting. The focus motor is loud if you are used to USM but it isn't that big an issue to me. Even though it is loud it is very snappy and would compete with any lens in the category. This lens does not have IS on it (the IS version is said to be worse optically) and it can be had for $450 easily. Finally the optics are almost as good as the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8.


Hope that doesn't throw a wrench in the works.


Samuel

Thanks, I'll keep the Tamron in mind.