EF-S 15-85mm

[koolman]

I own the 15-85 I got it together with my rebel 550d 3 years ago.

It mostly sits in the draw... I developed an aversion to the lens as it has VERY ANNOYING lens creep, is quite heavy, is a slow 5.6, and I found not particularly sharp unless stopped down to f/8.

I walk around with 2 primes, a 20mm voigtlander for outside, and a 50mm 1.4 for people shots / something longer.

The IQ of the 15-85 is nice - and it has the WIDE 15mm side which is special for a crop.

I compared it to the 18-135 of a friend - the 15-85 is a step up, the 18-135 is very entry level.

[LikeBreathing]

Would like to see an f/4 version of this lens to make it equivalent to the 24-105.  5.6 at the long end can be a bit slow.

[preppyak]

The EF-S 15-85mm turns 4 years old next year, which is quite old in technology years (in my humble opinion)

Then you have a lot to learn about the timeline of lenses. The 15-85 is actually the youngest of the pricier EF-S lenses (along with the 17-55, 17-85, 18-200, 60mm, and 10-22), and none of them have been updated yet. Some of them were introduced in 2004, which makes them nearly a decade old.

Likewise, go to the EF lenses and some of them (like the 50mm f/1.8 ) are from the early 1990s. The vast majority of Canon lenses that cost <$1000 are more than 10yrs old

[AprilForever]

Would like to see an f/4 version of this lens to make it equivalent to the 24-105.  5.6 at the long end can be a bit slow.

I second the motion! And I wouldn't mind it growing a bit to about 100mm...

[unfocused]

I'm always curious what people mean by "L Build Quality." I have three "L" lenses (70-300, 100-400, and 100 macro) and I have rented two others (300 f4 & 400 f5.6). I'm hard pressed to see any consistent or practical difference in the build quality between these lenses and the 15-85 EF-S.

First of all, Canon has no consistent standard for its L lenses (other than price) so I'm not sure what defines "L Build Quality." Second, I have the 15-85 on my 7D about 90 percent of the time and it gets a fair amount of banging around with no noticeable effect. It is a heavy, very robust lens. Certainly handles and feels no different than any of the "L" lenses I am familiar with. (Yes, it does have that "self-zooming" feature that can be annoying, but I consider that just a characteristic of this particular lens). 

So, what is this supposed build quality that "L" lenses all have that the 15-85 lacks and is it practical or theoretical?

[sawsedge]

If the range is useful to you, just buy it.  Mine was extremely sharp at all apertures (I didn't see any softness until the extreme corners wide open).  It's a great walkaround lens, and was a great landscape lens.  It even had decent bokeh.  For indoors I use a fast prime instead.  I didn't have zoom creep, but it was still pristine when I sold it (I bought a 5D3).

[distant.star]

.
I use this lens a lot. It's on my T2i unless I go to another lens for some specific purpose. I'm consistently amazed at how sharp and versatile it is. For the person saying it doesn't get really sharp until f/8, that's not what the charts say -- it's best around f/5.6 and falls off a bit in either direction after that. I often tend to stay around f/8 for DOF and often go to f/11 where it's still sharp enough. I'm surprised by folks that say they have no creep on theirs -- I thought it was just a price to be paid with this lens model. Anyway, a few observations out of experience:

1. The 15-85 often does not allow me to compose in camera. In some situations I have to go too wide to get a wider aperture needed for the shot. Then I have to crop in post. I did not have that experience with the 17-55 as it is f/2.8 throughout its zoom range. I'm consistently torn between these two lenses for that reason.

2. The 15-85 has a 4-stop IS that allows me to go down to 1/10 sec handheld as long as the scene has no motion. When the train comes by here on an overcast day, I have to go to a faster lens. I'm not sure, but I think the IS in the 17-55 is the older 3-stop. Still great, and I've done some really low light handheld with the 17-55.

3. I'm no lens expert, but to me Canon seems to have designed the 15-85 to be an APS-C rough equivalent to the 24-105 on FF. The 17-55 seems their answer to the 24-70 on the FF. At least that's how I see it. I do think if you plan to be serious about photography with an APS-C sensor, one of these two lenses is a must have. And my wholly uneducated guess is that neither lens will change much over the next few years.

4. Macro capability. The 15-85 is not a macro lens, per se. However, in my experience, it has often rivaled my EF-S 60mm macro in image quality. Now, I'm no macro person, but part of the versatility of the 15-85 for me is a very close focusing distance and extremely sharp close-up images. You can be walking around with the 15-85 and when one of those flower/insect kind of things pops up, you haven't sacrificed a lot not having the macro lens along (at least with good light).

Like people, all lenses have good and bad in them. Overall, I say the 15-85 is about as good as a general purpose zoom gets. If that fits your needs and budget, no reason to hesitate.

[eddiemrg]

here we are: no lens news from New York, so I am going to buy 15-85 in few weeks.
thanks a lot to everyone here!

[eddiemrg]

and here you are my 15-85. Brand new, no creepy phenomenon, big and heavy construction.
15 is the best compromise for my use combined with 4-REAL-stop IS the real "bingo"!

So... I am done here, thanks a lot to all of you, see you for other advices!

[insanitybeard]

I'm always curious what people mean by "L Build Quality." I have three "L" lenses (70-300, 100-400, and 100 macro) and I have rented two others (300 f4 & 400 f5.6). I'm hard pressed to see any consistent or practical difference in the build quality between these lenses and the 15-85 EF-S.

First of all, Canon has no consistent standard for its L lenses (other than price) so I'm not sure what defines "L Build Quality." Second, I have the 15-85 on my 7D about 90 percent of the time and it gets a fair amount of banging around with no noticeable effect. It is a heavy, very robust lens. Certainly handles and feels no different than any of the "L" lenses I am familiar with. (Yes, it does have that "self-zooming" feature that can be annoying, but I consider that just a characteristic of this particular lens). 

So, what is this supposed build quality that "L" lenses all have that the 15-85 lacks and is it practical or theoretical?

The main build differences I notice are in the feel and quality of the manual focus rings- my 10-22 EF-S is thin and scratchy in use, it also feels a bit too tight for accurate adjustment for my liking. The AF-MF switch is of lower quality than on my L lenses, it no longer clicks positively like it used to but still works so I haven't sent it for repair. Beyond these two things the build feels very little different to the 17-40L.

[neuroanatomist]

So, what is this supposed build quality that "L" lenses all have that the 15-85 lacks and is it practical or theoretical?

I haven't used the 15-85mm except for trying it out in a shop, but I had the 17-55mm.  Compared to the 24-105mm (they are pretty much the same size and weight), the zoom mechanism feels much better on the L lens - when zooming out to the long end, the 24-105 stops with a damped shhhhuck whereas the 17-55mm stops with a hollow-feeling clunk.  Turning the rings on the 24-105mm gives a much more damped feel as well. 

[eddiemrg]

These are NOT problems, this is a philosophic essay...

[dr croubie]

I would not expect them to update the 15-85mm any time soon. 

The 18-135mm was updated mainly to include STM, since it is sold as a kit lens with the T4i/650D.   The T4i/650D is Canon's first dSLR to provide AF during video shooting, and STM lenses are optimized for that use (smooth AF, as opposed to the 'jerky' AF you get with micromotor or USM lenses).

The 15-85mm lens is just about the same price as the T4i itself, and lenses at that price point are not appealing to most Rebel/xxxD shooters.  So, likely no need for STM in that lens.  Maybe if Canon adds video AF to a higher end body, we'll see more STM lenses down the line...maybe.   But there's a trade-off - STM lenses focus more slowly than their USM counterparts, and that's going to be a turnoff for many users of high end lenses.  The 18-135mm was not USM anyway, but micromotor - STM made is smoother without a focus speed penalty.

Optically, the 15-85mm is already delivering L-series performance (though without the L-series build).  Given that, I'm not sure there's much of a need for an update.

And the other thing is, the 15-85 was released back with the 7D (if not 'with', then at least around the same time). At the time, the 7D was the most advanced APS-C around, with kickass IQ to boot. Since then, we've only had cut-back versions of the same camera with pretty much the same sensor, no need for a new lens. If and When we see the 7D mk2, we 'might' see new APS-C lenses, or we might not. But we definitely won't see them before then...

[wickidwombat]

I'd be interested in an EOS-M verison
EF-M 15-85 STM IS it would be even better if it were constant f4 too (I'm not the biggest fan of having my widest available aperture as 5.6) maybe they could put the Hybrid Is in there and the latest coatings, it would be interesting to see what sort of size reduction  the EF-M system could achieve.