Canon 15-85 for a walk around lens

[bklein61]

I am once again looking for advice.

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon 15-85 Lens and am wondering someone has some hands on experience as far as Image quality goes

My present equipment is
Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L Is
Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens
Canon 50 1.8

I am thinking of the 15-85 to replace my 18-55

Also considered the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, which would give me a constant 2.8 but shorter focal range.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is out of my budget

Any thoughts

Thank You

 

[wickidwombat]

given you have the 70-300 already I would say the best would be the 17-55 f2.8 IS from canon
the sigma would be a cheaper option and I know several people that use this and love it
but the much faster aperture will be much more beneficial for a general purpose lens IMO

 

[Loswr]

I think it's great as an outdoor walkaround lens. Indoors, you'll need a flash, preferably a Speedlite and not the popup.

 

[dstppy]

I think it's great as an outdoor walkaround lens. Indoors, you'll need a flash, preferably a Speedlite and not the popup.

But even with a popup, the 15-85 demolishes any real competitors.

This lens is essentially the EF-S version of the 24-105, but, as you're suggesting, if you need a low-light lens, f2.8 is a whole other ballpark and you HAVE to supplement with a flash.

If you *have* to have the f2.8, then go for that, quality is one thing, but making up for light is straight math.

 

[elflord]

Given its very uninspiring spec (it's a slow zoom -- equivalent to 24mm-136mm f/5.6-f/9) , it is quite good. It has substantial barrel distortion at 15mm, but that levels off pretty quickly. It is very useful at the wider end of its focal range. The tele end of the range makes it somewhat usable outdoor portraits (provided the background is a long way from the subject), but the fact that it's a slow f/5.6 (that's f/9 equivalent) makes it less than ideal as an indoor portrait lens. Since I use the 50-85mm range primarily for portraits, I didn't find the extra range that useful and used it mostly in the 15-35mm range.

I'd recommend thinking about what you want it for (walk around means lots of different things -- but what does it mean to you ?) and considering a constant f/2.8 lens or an ultra wide.

I am once again looking for advice.

I am thinking of purchasing the Canon 15-85 Lens and am wondering someone has some hands on experience as far as Image quality goes

My present equipment is
Canon 50D
Canon 70-300L Is
Canon 18-55 IS Kit lens
Canon 50 1.8

I am thinking of the 15-85 to replace my 18-55

Also considered the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, which would give me a constant 2.8 but shorter focal range.

The Canon 17-55 2.8 is out of my budget

Any thoughts

Thank You

 

[distant.star]

It's on my T2i most of the time, and I believe the IQ is as good as any L I've got (except maybe the 135).

Outside, it's a star. I've found it to be nearly the equal of my EF-S 60mm for macro images. It does decent landscapes, excellent portraits and is just about a perfect walkaround lens.

Now, for indoor, I wouldn't dismiss it as easily as some. I've used it indoors a lot, always without flash. The 4-stop IS makes up for a lot of light-gathering deficiency. I customarily shoot people indoors at 1/30 at ISO as low as 200. Now, that's not going to help with motion blur if you're chasing a child around, but for normal situations, you can get away with it.

I tried a little experiment recently. For Thanksgiving, I shot all my indoor stuff with the 15-85. Usual late afternoon and night lighting inside a home. For Christmas, I used only a 50mm 1.8 shooting mostly at 1.8 and 2.0 (no IS, obviously). Well, the 15-85 dramatically outperformed the 50 in image quality overall.

Also, if you're going to have to buy a good flash, you're then in the dollar range of the 17-55 anyway.

Anyway, just my experience and thoughts. Good luck with however you go.

 

[swo]

I love my Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (without stabilization). It's on my 40D 90% of the time. It's sharp as heck, great in low light, and a bargain at $450 or so.

I've heard that the one with stabilization isn't as sharp, but it wasn't an option when I bought mine, anyway.

 

[wickidwombat]

not sure how you could compare the 15-85 to the 24-105 on FF as at the long end its a full stop slower!
big difference,
My suggestion would be to save up some more money and get the canon 17-55 f2.8 or if you need one right now go for the sigma, I've had bad experiences with tamron so I wouldnt touch them with a barge pole and 2 other members recently had their tamron 17-55 f2.8 lenses fail.
you have the 70-300L for everything in the long end so from 70 to 85 its a stop faster than the 15-85 is.
with the lenses you already have the 17-55 fits in best or the sigma alternative just make sure you test the sigma thoroughly. but i thinj the 50D has AF micro adjust anyway so you should be fine.

maybe hunt for a cheaper second hand canon 17-55 f2.8

you will regret buying a slow lens

 

[elflord]

The 4-stop IS makes up for a lot of light-gathering deficiency.

The IS will help you shoot at a lower ISO setting, but you're still stuck f/5.6 depth of field (again, that's ff equivalent to f/9!). With indoor shots, shallow depth of field is much more critical than outdoor shots because you can't frame the picture in such a way as to get the background 60ft behind the subject.

I tried a little experiment recently. For Thanksgiving, I shot all my indoor stuff with the 15-85. Usual late afternoon and night lighting inside a home. For Christmas, I used only a 50mm 1.8 shooting mostly at 1.8 and 2.0 (no IS, obviously). Well, the 15-85 dramatically outperformed the 50 in image quality overall.

While I don't know the details of this experiment, it doesn't strike me as a fair test -- you are shooting the prime at f/2 and f/1.8 and then comparing it with the zoom shot at f/5 or slower.

The prime is at its sharpest around f/5.6-f/8 , and gets substantially sharper from f/1.8 to f/2.8, see photozone
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/160-canon-ef-50mm-f18-ii-test-report--review?start=1, the zoom is already close to its peak at maximum aperture ( http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/465-canon_1585_3556is?start=1).

 

[bklein61]

Thank You for all your reply's

I am planning on using the 15-85 mostly for outdoors as this is where 90% of my shooting takes place. I do use the 50 1.8 exclusively for indoor, and was planning on upgrading that down the road with either the Canon 1.4 or Sigma 1.4.

What I was mostly concern with was image quality between the Canon 15-85 and the Sigma 17-50 for outdoor use.

I do not find it be much of a bother to shoot with a faster prime instead of a zoom for indoors. Just have to move the feet a little bit

 

[distant.star]

You might also want to look at images uploaded to Flickr using this lens:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon1585/pool/

 

[RC]

I had this lens up until about a month ago and sold it primarily for a weather sealed lens--I went with the 16-35. Overall I loved the lens and was very happy with it.

I had two issues which came up on a single trip which led me to selling it. I was out in a rain/snow mixture and had to abort my shooting (I was on vacation, 2000 miles from home). I took a lot of architecture shots (mostly at 15mm). When viewing them, I was dissapointed with the extreme distortion (now I want a tilt-shift). I'm a rookie at PP but I don't think they are fixable. One other thing that I didn't like was the variable aperture.

Assuming these are not issues for you, I highly recommend it for a walk-around lens.

Pros for the 15-85
- Excellent focal range for walk-around lens
- Very sharp lens for its class
- Very good build quality for its class
- IS


Cons
- Variable aperture, f/3.5 jumps to f/4 about 17mm and quickly jumps to 5.6 (forget at what focal range)
- Too much distortion (for me) at 15mm
- Smidge of zoom drifting when lens is pointed upward

 

[wickidwombat]

Thank You for all your reply's

I am planning on using the 15-85 mostly for outdoors as this is where 90% of my shooting takes place. I do use the 50 1.8 exclusively for indoor, and was planning on upgrading that down the road with either the Canon 1.4 or Sigma 1.4.

What I was mostly concern with was image quality between the Canon 15-85 and the Sigma 17-50 for outdoor use.

I do not find it be much of a bother to shoot with a faster prime instead of a zoom for indoors. Just have to move the feet a little bit

as i often say, get them both side by side and test them out, I think lensrentals with take the rental cost of the final purchase? if you are in the us or canada that way you can play for a couple of days and get a feel for what suits you make sure you are happy with them but be aware a 2 stop aperture difference is very very big and gives you alot of flexability,

 

[wickidwombat]

just checked ebay from a cheap seller i've used alot
15-85 $730
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3-5-5-6-USM-Lens-f3-5-5-6-No-Hidden-Cost-AU-/260881346329?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item3cbdbd6f19

17-55 $1040
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Canon-EF-S-17-55mm-f-2-8-USM-17-55-Kenko-77mm-UV-/170664502686?pt=AU_Lenses&hash=item27bc65a59e


for about a $300 difference I would definately save up a bit more to put the 17-55 in budget

 

[moreorless]

Image Quality between them is really close enough to not make it an issue I'd say so it really comes down to focal lenght vs appature.

What do you shoot? if its mostly people/action and often indoors then the 17-50 is probabley a better option for faster shutter speeds and shallow DOF, if its mostly outdoors and/or landscapes the 15-85 does with its range and flare resistance.

Personally speaking I preffer using a small prime(35mm f/2) for people shooting, gets in peoples faces less, offers a larger appature and I find the zoom less important than for landscape since you can do it with you feet.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I bought one a few months ago to use as a general purpose lens with my 7D, and am guite pleased with it. I own or have owned most of the Canon lenses, lacking only a few ultra wides and Supertelephotos. I tried using my wonderful 17-55 for walk-around, and ended using the 24-105 to supplement it. Now, one lens takes care of almost all outdoor walk-around use.

Indoors is a different situation, and in very low light, primes are the way to go. F/2.8 zooms are fine for well lighted indoor use, but with my set of primes, they tend to fall into dsuse. I even returned my wonderful 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II because I could see that I preferred primes for low light and indoor use, and in good light, my old 70-200mm f/4L IS was much easier to carry and use.

 

[candyman]

Indoors is a different situation, and in very low light, primes are the way to go.

+1

Edit: I moved my question to the right thread: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,302.msg56252.html#msg56252

 

[unfocused]

I have owned the 15-85 for more than two years. It is on my 7D about 90% of the time and about 90% of my photos are taken using this lens.

It is an excellent walk-around lens. Would I prefer a constant f4 aperture? Yes. But until Canon makes one, I'll be using this lens. It is super sharp, focuses very quickly and highly versatile when you can't predict what you'll be shooting.

I agree with Mt. Spokane that for low-light photography, a fast prime is much more practical. However, for candid family indoor shooting, I usually pair this lens with a bounced or diffused strobe, as the versatility of the zoom makes it worthwhile for informal stuff. I would take this lens over a slightly faster non-IS zoom lens in a second.

All lenses are compromises and it depends on your use, but for me the advantage of having a 24mm equivalent at the wide end and a 135mm at the long end outweighs any disadvantages.

What are the disadvantages? Aside from the slower aperture, my copy does suffer from some serious lens creep. (Hang the camera from your neck and the lens will consistently zoom itself out from about 24mm to 70mm.) It is a pretty substantial (heavy) lens for the focal length. You need a wide-angle filter to avoid vignetting at the wide end.

But, all in all, it is the lens I consistently put on my 7D and use.

 

[sawsedge]

I just bought one myself, for outdoor walk-around and landscape use. It will replace my 17-40, which is great but I found the range limited for walk-around. The range is perfect for me, the sharpness is better than the 17-40 - it is sharp corner to corner at every setting, even wide open, with only the very extreme corners showing any falloff in detail. I'm also using a 50D btw. I wish it had at least a constant f/4 aperture. Focus seems fast and accurate, IS is barely noticeable in use but definitely helps when I examine the results.

For indoor use, I have the 50mm f/1.4, and I am considering the 28mm f/1.8 as well.

 

[T-RonX]

I use the 15-85 as my main lens on a 500D for more than 2 years now.

The range is great and the IS and USM are really good.

IQ is quite good at 24mm and up, even wide open, but my EF 50mm 1.4 is definitely noticeably sharper.

It has quite a bit CA, vignetting and distortion at 15mm, but thats correctable.

The colors and contrast are also a step up from the kitlens.

Flare is also very well handled.

The corners at 15mm are quite soft, which bothers me.

The bokeh it renders (if any...) is round and really creamy, much better than my 50 1.4 @5.6.

But god I wish it was a stop faster...