Advice before buying used 15-85 EF-S

[sootzzs]

1. Best lens I ever used for general wide to short tele.  I've had many others bought and sold incl 18-55 IS, 17-895 USM, sigma 17-70 etc   I had rented the 15-85 and the 24-105 L together, took a lot of shots, could barely tell the difference in IQ, so I got the 15-85 to save a few $$ and I wanted the shorter end of the zoom.

Very good build for a non-L,  despite reviews I have seen no CA, yes, some vignetting which is automatically removed in processing, very sharp, etc etc

It's not my money, but I would fork over a few extra bucks if you can to get a new one rather than a used one.
I know it's a lot, but today, lenses are not just glass , they have moving parts(IS, AF) etc.  I would only buy a used lens from a reputable dealer who tests and checks out lenses.  Not that an individual seller would be out to stick you w/a lemon, it's just that he/she might not be aware of the true condition of the lens.

good luck

Yeah, that is how I feel about used electronics in general. But a new one is a gray market lens with only one year warranty anyway. Did you own the Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4 DC HSM OS macro??? How was it compared to 15-85?

[sootzzs]

I've had this lens for almost three years. It is my standard, walk around lens on a 7D. Robust build, very sharp. There is no real comparison between this lens and the cheap kit lenses. The extra 2-3mm at the wide angle are very significant. If it were a constant f 4 it would be the perfect lens, but even with the variable aperture, it's quite good.

Only question I have is the price. I'm not a big fan of used lenses, but that's just me. I'd rather pay a slight premium for the warranty and security. (Actually my preferred option is to buy from the Canon refurbished store, but that's probably not an option for you) For U.S. the price seems a bit high for a used lens, but it may be reasonable in your market.

Well, new gray market one costs here (Israel) 790$. I saw it for 699$ on B&H. But the shipping and taxes will even the prices, so it is not worth it.

[papa-razzi]

Sounds like you have your mind made up on the 15-85.  It is a great lens, lots of good reviews, etc.  If you can buy it used from someone who will let you look at the lens and test it on your camera, then you should be fine.

You should strongly consider the 17-55 f/2.8.  If you are doing indoor shots and flash always isn't an option, then this lens will make the difference in getting the shot and not getting it.  As far as image quality, I would say the 17-55 and the 15-85 are close enough to each other to not make much difference in real-world shooting.

In general, you have a decent kit that covers a wide range, including a fast prime.  Therefore, you should be buying new lenses with a specific purpose or type of shooting in mind.  Also, I agree with others that suggest saving up for exactly what you want.  Lenses outlast several body generations so you will live with what you get for a long time (or constantly end up buying and selling lenses).

[ishdakuteb]

imo, i would not buy that lens 15-85mm, but save some more money to buy 24-105mm f/4L. why? here are reasons:

1. build quality comparing to 25-105mm
2. popularity
3. can be used for both FF and Crop
4. pretty good in maintaining its value
5. pretty easy to sale it back whenever you do not like it

you can find used or even brand new from somewhere $800-850.  as if you have enough luck, you can even find it more cheaper...  I have used this 24-105mm for a while and have no complain... note:  15-85mm might give you slightly greater bokeh than 24-105mm (just my guess and i am not sure since i do not have 15-85mm to test with).

my 2 cents

[Aglet]

imo, i would not buy that lens 15-85mm, but save some more money to buy 24-105mm f/4L.

24-105 is too wide for general use on a crop body, and large-heavy

15-85mm is a terrific lens, one of my favorites, it's never been off my 60D.  Touch slow, ya, but 60D has good high ISO performance to cover in most situations and you often want to stop down to near 5.6 most times for more DoF anyway.  It's a great walk-around, really sharp where it counts.

17-55mm is a great lens too, not as capable IS as the newer 15-85mm but you have an extra stop worth of aperture which you can actually make use of on occasion for low light or more background blur.  I rarely use mine tho, the 15-85's wide end is more useful than one might expect.

Also, if you don't really need the IS on a 17-55mm 2.8, have a look at the Tamron, the NON-stabilized version is actually a bit better than the newer OS one and IQ is pretty decent for the $  I'm ordering one for my Nikon's to sort of make up for them not having the great 15-85mm like Canon.

BTW - a friend of mine managed to nab a new 15-85mm at London Drugs in Edmonton this spring on some kind of sale for under $500.  I told him to not even think about it as they were going for more than that used!  He's very happy he's got one on his T2i now.

[distant.star]

.
I don't think you can make a mistake with the 15-85mm. It's my everyday lens (and I shoot every day) on a T2i and has been for two years. The only thing that gives me somewhat better images are L lenses, but it's hardly noticeable. The IS gives you up to a four-stop advantage so even in low light you can get a good image at slow shutter speeds. It's not going to give you the bokeh of a wide aperture, nor is it going to slow motion blur, but it does most things effectively. If you're chasing kids around with it, get a flash. Also, as someone mentioned, it does a fine job with macro shots. Only my EF-S 60mm does better, but that's a macro lens.

When I first got my lens, it had some uneven focus across a plane. It went back to Canon and it's been flawless ever since.

My suggestion is to spend $640 at the Canon refurb store for the lens. You'll get a 90-day Canon warranty -- and the assurance than Canon looked at it and made sure it's working properly.

The only real alternative in this class is the 17-55mm. It's a great lens with a constant f/2.8. But if you want the broader range, this is the only one to have on a crop body.

[marshall]

I own both a 15-85 and a 17-55. The 15-85 is the lens that I use the most as I prefer the reach. The 17-55 is great to shot at dusk or indoors (or moving things!). The AF is also faster in the 17-55, especially in low light. IQ-wise, I would be hard pressed to tell the difference though. Both lenses are significantly better than the kit and you will notice the difference right away. Like you, I got frustrated by the kit lens relatively quickly after realizing that my old point and shoot was producing similar IQ and went for the 15-85. Extremely happy.

I am in general hesitant with used equipment unless the seller has good references and he/she is willing to take the lens back if there is an obvious problem. I think for the price you are being asked, at least in the US, you are very close to a refurbished one. Refurbished lenses -especially factory refurbished ones- are often almost like new and you get some sort of warranty + the ability to return it if you feel something is fishy.

You cannot go wrong with the 15-85. The only reason I got the 17-55 is because I had to do some indoors shootings for a friend and that is something the 15-85 is not good at (especially on a rebel where you cannot really pump up the ISO). For daylight photo I normally take the 15-85 and leave the 17-55 at home without thinking it twice.

Cheers,
Marshall

[sootzzs]

Thanks guys for your very insightful feedback! Really appreciated!

I've decided to pay the extra 165$ and get a new one as I reasoned that I will probably use this lens for at least next 3 years and prefer it new.

I did order one from a local retailer. The thing is they told me that the cheaper price is because it dismantled from a 7D kit. Can that somehow affect the quality of the lens?? How should I check the lens when it will arrive? 

[electricpanic]

Thanks for the advice. I am about to buy mine. but I am still bit confused