Thats a good point Mark. The 6 month warranty and even the 14 day return policy is a big consideration when purchasing a near $1K used lens. What to do...what to do...?Originally Posted by clemmb
I have not had any issues with either but KEH has a great warranty.
I'd say the build quality of both is pretty good. It's not weather sealed, sure, but they're both built better than any other EF-S lenses from my (limited) experience.
Backing up, there are 3 lenses mentioned above that cover the standard zoom range of wide angle to short telephoto on APS-C - the 17-55mm, 15-85mm, and 17-85mm. Be careful about the last one - it's optically inferior to the other two.
For most, the choice of a top IQ APS-C general purpose zoom boils down to 17-55mm f/2.8 vs. 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6. They are optically similar, except the 15-85 has a bit worse vignetting and barreling at the wide end. Build is similar, too, both use ring USM and have FTM. So, basically it comes down to a constant f/2.8 vs. broader focal range and lower cost.
If you'll use mostly outdoors, don't need to stop action in low light, and don't plan on shooting a lot of portraits, the 15-85mm is a great choice. Personally, I opted for the 17-55mm, and found it to be excellent.
$850-900 used is a decent price, although I've seen them on Craigslist for $800 and a bit lower.
I've said previously that I planned to keep the 17-55mm as long as I had an APS-C body, and especially for times when the AF of the 5DII wouldn't be adequate. But...my 1D X will be here soon, so AF woes with FF are done, and in fact, looking over my EXIF, I'd used the 17-55 just twice over the past year - not enough to justify keeping it. Accordingly, I recently sold mine for $850, not bad considering I paid $1000 for it new, in 2009. The proceeds from that will likely go towards a 24-70 II.
The only con I can think of for the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is that it tends to hunt for focus in dim light. Other camera/lens combinations have worked better than the 50D and 7D paired with a 17-55 under similar conditions. That said, it's still the best general purpose lens for a crop body. If I could only have one lens, that would be it.
Samara on the Bench by budrowilson, on Flickr
Since you're replacing your 17-50mm, you can answer which lens you need yourself.
When to choose the 17-55mm:
Do you often use the larger aperture for low-light, indoor, or thin DOF shots?
When to choose the 15-85mm:
Do you often find yourself at 50mm wishing you could go further?
Do you often find yourself at 17mm wishing you could go further?
After you've answered yes to all three of those questions (), you have to decide which is more important to you.
A friend of mine just tried out a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for his Nikon (yes, I'm friends with a Nikon owner). Unfortunately, he was not happy with it and will likely be returning it (the lens, not the camera). He put it through a battery of tests and sent me the results. Focusing, CA, corner sharpness, and vignetting were all fairly low grade.
Jonathan Huyer
www.huyerperspectives.com
QC varies quite a bit with the Tamron 17-50. One copy I purchased (property of the school I work at) is tack sharp and has no focus issues; it's a real gem whose wide open IQ is as good as the Canon 17-55 IMO. But then its zoom ring broke about 6 months ago. Good thing Tamron' warranty process was very easy to navigate, and the lens is back in service. A second copy I bought for myself was so bad that I returned it. Go figure. I did not buy another copy and chose the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 instead. That has worked out fairly well so far, but an upcoming Fall trip to Rocky Mountain National Park will probably *require* me to purchase an all purpose zoom (since 30mm on APS-C is as wide as I can go right now, and my next shortest lens is my 70-300L).A friend of mine just tried out a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 for his Nikon (yes, I'm friends with a Nikon owner
David and John's analyses below are all you really need....low light use and/or portraits, or primarily outdoors? The photography world is full of happy owners of both lenses.
Use the 15-85 and love it. But agree with the above advice. It depends what you shoot. Lenses are tools. I am outdoors a lot. The 17-55 and 15-85 are both great lenses.
Decision Made!
Thank you to everyone, sincerely.
I used all of your sound advice and thought about how the lens would 'fit' in my bag and decided to go with the 17-55. Since I already have the Canon 100mm F/2.8 and the 70-200 F/2.8 (well, I'll have it Friday) I decided on the faster lens instead of the extra reach. Again, thanks to everyone for your great advice!
Have fun with all the new glass!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote