15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 vs 17-40mm f/4L for a crop camera

[unfocused]

This really shouldn't be that difficult of a decision. Buy the 15-85mm.

The quality of the glass is excellent. The zoom range covers all the most-used focal lengths from 24mm to 135mm. It's affordable and has very good IS. It's a substantial lens with good, solid build-quality that can withstand lots of banging around.

Would I prefer a 15-85mm f4 constant aperture? Yes, but they don't make that one – yet.

Zoom creep on mine is horrible. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be "afraid" of zoom creep. It's at worst an inconvenience. If you are shooting something straight up or straight down, just hold on to the zoom ring when shooting. Not that difficult. In normal use, you are going to be looking through the viewfinder to frame the subject before shooting so it really doesn't matter if the lens has zoomed itself in, just zoom it back out. Again, not that difficult.

 

[ecka]

Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)

At the long end it's f/5.6 (2 stops). At 55mm, it's f/5 (1 2/3 stops). f/2.8 isn't just an advantage for low light -- you can still get reasonably shallow dof at 55mm f/2.8 on a crop, whereas the 15-85mm is pretty much an "f/8 and be there" lens.

17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.

This really shouldn't be that difficult of a decision. Buy the 15-85mm.

The quality of the glass is excellent. The zoom range covers all the most-used focal lengths from 24mm to 135mm. It's affordable and has very good IS. It's a substantial lens with good, solid build-quality that can withstand lots of banging around.

Would I prefer a 15-85mm f4 constant aperture? Yes, but they don't make that one – yet.

Zoom creep on mine is horrible. But I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be "afraid" of zoom creep. It's at worst an inconvenience. If you are shooting something straight up or straight down, just hold on to the zoom ring when shooting. Not that difficult. In normal use, you are going to be looking through the viewfinder to frame the subject before shooting so it really doesn't matter if the lens has zoomed itself in, just zoom it back out. Again, not that difficult.

+1

 

[elflord]

17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.

I'm not saying that the 15-85mm needs to be stopped down to perform adequately, I'm saying that even "wide open" (or as open as it can go), it doesn't have very shallow depth of field. At the tele end of its range, it is depth-of-field equivalent to f/8 or f/9 on a full frame, which is what motivated my reference to "f/8 and be there".

I agree that it performs pretty well at its maximum apertures. It's is a slow zoom, but as far as slow zooms go, it's pretty good.

 

[lol]

The original question was a choice of either the 17-40 or 15-85. Neither develop much shallow depth of field. And if you really wanted shallow depth of field, you could consider the 50mm f/1.8 in addition to the 15-85 which combined still costs less than the 17-55 by itself.

 

[LuCoOc]

Keep in mind that 2.8 vs 4.0 is only one stop difference. For real low light shoots you need to get one of the fast primes (50mm, 35mm, 24mm)

At the long end it's f/5.6 (2 stops). At 55mm, it's f/5 (1 2/3 stops). f/2.8 isn't just an advantage for low light -- you can still get reasonably shallow dof at 55mm f/2.8 on a crop, whereas the 15-85mm is pretty much an "f/8 and be there" lens.

Agreed, which is why I prefer the 17-55mm - it does pretty well as a portrait lens, too, whereas the 15-85mm often cannot deliver sufficient OOF blur for the desired framing, because of the narrower aperture. The wider aperture also allows faster shutter speeds when needed. To me, that makes the 17-55mm a better general purpose zoom - outdoors and indoors, landscapes, action and portraits, vs. the 15-85mm which is more suited to outdoors and landscapes.

Oops! Tatally agree with you two... kinda mixed the 3 lenses in this thread. Anyway, get the 15-85 and if neccessary a flash (430 EX II?) for indoor use.

 

[ecka]

17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.

I'm not saying that the 15-85mm needs to be stopped down to perform adequately, I'm saying that even "wide open" (or as open as it can go), it doesn't have very shallow depth of field. At the tele end of its range, it is depth-of-field equivalent to f/8 or f/9 on a full frame, which is what motivated my reference to "f/8 and be there".

I agree that it performs pretty well at its maximum apertures. It's is a slow zoom, but as far as slow zooms go, it's pretty good.

Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent) , isn't it?
I do agree that 17-55 f/2.8 aperture is a strong point against 15-85, but it is out of the OP's budget. So ... why arguing?
You can get 15-85 + 430EXII for less than 17-55 alone.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've had a 17-40, 17-55, 24-105, and now use a 15-85mm on my crop camera.

The 17-55 is a great lens, but for outdoor and good light, the wider range of the 15-85 is very nice. I personally did not like the 17-40 on a crop, or on my 5D MK II as well. It just seemed to lack something.

A 24-105mm L is excellent on both crop and FF, but I found 24mm to often be too long on a crop.

You will not go wrong with any of the lenses its just matching the aperture and focal length to what you need.

 

[AJ]

So, now I have a new question. How about the Tamron 17-50mm vs the Canon 15-85mm

Really depends on what you're using the lens for (if you want f/2.8 or the longer range). If you're using it indoors, the Tamron. For an outdoor walkaround, the 15-85.

^^^ this

If you want to shoot selective focus with crop gear you'll need a fast prime, or something like a fast 70-200. Don't count on your standard zoom, neither 17-55 nor 15-85 delivers much blur.

 

[Loswr]

17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.

How do you figure that? Wide open, they have similar center sharpness through the range, and away from the center, the 17-55mm is sharper. Plus, wide open is wider on the 17-55mm. Also, sharpness isn't everything. The 17-55mm has less distortion and less vignetting, and while those can easily be corrected in post, proper correction of the distortion at 15mm means you're not getting a 15mm AoV, and the corrections also mean even softer (and noisier) corners. But really, the differences in IQ are minor, and shouldn't be the deciding factor. Rather, it's a trade off between aperture and focal range, and of course, budget.

 

[Radiating]

Again, I've posted here before asking about different lens. So now I'm being a little realistic.

Rather than purchasing 24-105, I'm thinking about getting the 17-40mm as a replacement for my kit lens.

Which lens is going to be a better replacement for my 18-55mm?

If you do have another suggestion, I'd like to hear it as well. But my price range is from $500 - $800.

(Side note, I do not plan on going FF. I do plan on upgrading to a 7d though, even though it's still a crop sensor camera)

This should really be a simple decision. The 17-40mm L is the absolute worst choice you could possibly have on a crop body. That lens is only useful on full frame. The reason is that is virtually idencial performance to the 18-55mm IS kit lens, while having significantly less features in many key areas. Canon makes an amazing kit lens for it's crop bodies. The 15-85mm is one of the best lenes around though.

 

[papa-razzi]

The best lens (IMO) is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I have this lens, and it is as sharp as both my L lenses (24-105, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS). It is the best general purpose lens, and the first one I would get for a crop camera. It handles low light well, has good IS, very good IQ - it is essentially the 24-70 f/2.8L for the crop cameras. I waited over a year before I got it and wondered why I waited so long.

The extra $150 over the 15-85 is well worth it.

For an outdoor walk-around lens, I would get the 24-105 f/4L or the 15-85. Both have very good IQ and IS. The primary difference is the focal length.

 

[ecka]

17-55 must be stopped down to at least f/4 to match the sharpness of the 15-85 wide open. It's not an f/8 lens really.

How do you figure that? Wide open, they have similar center sharpness through the range, and away from the center, the 17-55mm is sharper. Plus, wide open is wider on the 17-55mm. Also, sharpness isn't everything. The 17-55mm has less distortion and less vignetting, and while those can easily be corrected in post, proper correction of the distortion at 15mm means you're not getting a 15mm AoV, and the corrections also mean even softer (and noisier) corners. But really, the differences in IQ are minor, and shouldn't be the deciding factor. Rather, it's a trade off between aperture and focal range, and of course, budget.

Yes, you are right, I just thought that elflord's point was that 15-85 is only good at f/8
Not so long ago (maybe less than a year) I did my "homework" before buying 15-85 for my 7D. The conclusion was that I don't need an L zoom for a crop body because I would use less half of that L lens potential. Optically 17-55 and 15-85 are just as good. However, 17-55 sharpness at f/2.8 didn't really satisfy me, it was very similar to that of 18-55 kit lens. So, if I'm going to use it at f/4 or smaller apertures then 15-85 is a much better choice for it's range, size/weight and price. While talking about DoF, short 2.8 zoom on a crop body isn't really that great (compared to FF). It may be not bad at 55/2.8 but for all the rest it is not a must have.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Again, I've posted here before asking about different lens. So now I'm being a little realistic.

Rather than purchasing 24-105, I'm thinking about getting the 17-40mm as a replacement for my kit lens.

Which lens is going to be a better replacement for my 18-55mm?

If you do have another suggestion, I'd like to hear it as well. But my price range is from $500 - $800.

(Side note, I do not plan on going FF. I do plan on upgrading to a 7d though, even though it's still a crop sensor camera)

Tamron 17-50 2.8 is great. I sold my 17-40L after comparing them.

15-85 is slower but has much larger range and adds IS, maybe not quite as sharp, but still sharp.
Never tried it but some say the sigma 17-50 OS is good.

 

[Axilrod]

The best lens (IMO) is the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8. I have this lens, and it is as sharp as both my L lenses (24-105, and 70-200 f/2.8 IS). It is the best general purpose lens, and the first one I would get for a crop camera. It handles low light well, has good IS, very good IQ - it is essentially the 24-70 f/2.8L for the crop cameras. I waited over a year before I got it and wondered why I waited so long.

The extra $150 over the 15-85 is well worth it.

For an outdoor walk-around lens, I would get the 24-105 f/4L or the 15-85. Both have very good IQ and IS. The primary difference is the focal length.

I agree 100%, also the variable aperture on the 15-85 can be limiting in certain situations.

 

[elflord]

Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent) , isn't it?

Sure, and that's a wide aperture, wider than f/8 and wide enough to get a pretty decent background blur though you really need a prime on APS-C to get more pronounced selective focus effects.

I do agree that 17-55 f/2.8 aperture is a strong point against 15-85, but it is out of the OP's budget. So ... why arguing?

The Tamron 17-50mm is in OPs budget.

 

[ecka]

Well, then 17-55 is pretty much an f/4 or f/4.5 lens (FF equivalent) , isn't it?

Sure, and that's a wide aperture, wider than f/8 and wide enough to get a pretty decent background blur though you really need a prime on APS-C to get more pronounced selective focus effects.

I do agree that 17-55 f/2.8 aperture is a strong point against 15-85, but it is out of the OP's budget. So ... why arguing?

The Tamron 17-50mm is in OPs budget.

Yes, I agree. However, as I mentioned before, Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS seems to be much nicer. It is more expensive than Tamron's older non-VC version, but it is cheaper and better than VC.

 

[docsmith]

Given a choice between the two options you give, I'd pick the EFS 15-85 in a heart beat (and I did, it is my general purpose lens and I highly recommend it). But I agree with others, I would decide between the EFS 17-55 f/2.8, EFS 15-85, and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non VC). If you truly stick to your price range, then you decide between the Tamron and the 15-85. If you want IS/VC and focal length range then the 15-85 makes sense.

But those are three highly regarded lenses for crop sensor cameras. As I said, I use the 15-85. It does great for outdoors, my primary subject. But I also take a ton of pictures of people and it is very sharp. I do need a flash for low light settings, but you'll need a flash for many low light settings with the f/2.8 lenses as well. The fastest aperture on the 15-85 is f/3.5 to 24 mm, f/4 to 35 mm, f/4.5 to 50 mm, f/5 to 70 mm, and f/5.6 from 70 to 80 mm. So in comparable focal length ranges, you are losing a 2/3 to 1 2/3 stop.

That said, all three of those lenses are very good.

 

[Synomis192]

Well, by popular demand, I do plan on getting the 15-85mm within the next few months. Thank you guys all for your suggestions.

But I do want the 17-55mm. It's so nice. haha

 

[Michael7]

Huge real world comparison here:

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

I've owned both lenses at the same time. The 17-40 produces better images. The 15-85 is more versatile. The build quality of the 17-40 is much better, and the barrel does not extend. The 15-85 is known for lens creep, which is unacceptable for a $750 lens. That said, the 15-85 build quality is a notch up on lenses like the 10-22 and 17-55, which are IMHO, flimsy. The 15-85 also has wicked vignetting and distortion at the wide end.

As a walkaround, the 15-85 is the superior lens. For landscape on a tripod in rugged conditions with the feel and andling of "luxury", the 17-40 is your lens. The 17-40 really needs another 10mm IMHO to be a great walkaround lens. I still own mine with my 7D, but I purchased a 24-105 IS because of the short range of the 17-40.

If most of your landscapes fall between 17 and 40mm, it's the lens to have on a crop, IMHO. Flare-handling is excellent as are colors and contrast.

For indoor shooting, just get primes. 2.8 is often not fast enough. I see the 2.8 crop zooms as jack of all trades, master of none. They don't have the reach of the 15-85's or the 24-105's, nor do they have the essential speed of the primes.

 

[sawsedge]

Huge real world comparison here:

http://www.parkcamper.com/17-40-versus-15-85IS/Canon-15-85-versus-17-40L-comparison.htm

I've owned both lenses at the same time. The 17-40 produces better images. The 15-85 is more versatile. The build quality of the 17-40 is much better, and the barrel does not extend. The 15-85 is known for lens creep, which is unacceptable for a $750 lens. That said, the 15-85 build quality is a notch up on lenses like the 10-22 and 17-55, which are IMHO, flimsy. The 15-85 also has wicked vignetting and distortion at the wide end.

As a walkaround, the 15-85 is the superior lens. For landscape on a tripod in rugged conditions with the feel and andling of "luxury", the 17-40 is your lens. The 17-40 really needs another 10mm IMHO to be a great walkaround lens. I still own mine with my 7D, but I purchased a 24-105 IS because of the short range of the 17-40.

If most of your landscapes fall between 17 and 40mm, it's the lens to have on a crop, IMHO. Flare-handling is excellent as are colors and contrast.

For indoor shooting, just get primes. 2.8 is often not fast enough. I see the 2.8 crop zooms as jack of all trades, master of none. They don't have the reach of the 15-85's or the 24-105's, nor do they have the essential speed of the primes.

I found the opposite. I never had a problem with my 17-40, but my 15-85 is definitely superior. Sample variation, I'd say. I would prefer a build like the 17-40, but I needed the extra range.

I agree with primes for indoor shooting, and that is exactly what I'm doing. I have the 50mm f/1.4 and plan to get the 28 f/1.8.