LOG IN    OR   REGISTER TO FORUMS


17-85 vs 15-85 - overhyped?

FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 18 Mar 2010 (Thursday) 11:51   
LIST NEARBY THREADS
 
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Looking at the photozone 15-85 and 17-85 tests on the 50D, I can't help but feel like the differences have been a bit overhyped. Judging from posts on this forum, the 17-85 is worse than the 18-55 kit lens and the 15-85 is practically L grade. However judging from these reviews, the 17-85 really doesn't seem much worse at all. It only loses on the wide end at the extreme corners, and at the telephoto end it actually beats the 15-85. Distortion is slightly better for the 15-85 at the wide end, but still not admirable, but vignetting is worse. CA is about the only category where the 15-85 really pulls ahead, but is still not great at wide angle.

Am I missing something here? Is the 15-85 overhyped, or is the 17-85 really not as bad as people like to say?

photozone reviews:
http://www.photozone.d​e ...on_1785_456is_50d?s​tart=1external link

http://www.photozone.d​e ...canon_1585_3556is?s​tart=1external link

Post #1, Mar 18, 2010 11:51:06


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
mrkgoo
Goldmember
Joined Aug 2006
2,288 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Who said the 17-85 was really bad?

Post #2, Mar 18, 2010 11:55:48




LOG IN TO REPLY
Sdiver2489
Goldmember
Joined Sep 2009
2,748 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

That's a pretty significant jump in resolution. The distortion measurement is better AND it's significantly wider. 15mm is nothing to scoff at.

That, and the build quality improved and the IS improved. Seems, like a significant upgrade to me.

Post #3, Mar 18, 2010 11:57:48


Please visit my Flickrexternal link and leave a comment!

Gear:
Canon 5D III, Canon 7D, Canon 24-70L F4 IS, Canon 70-300L F4-F5.6 IS, Canon 100mm F2.8L IS Macro, Canon 35mm F2.0 IS, Canon 430EX II, Canon 580EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

Sdiver2489 wrote in post #9822095external link
That's a pretty significant jump in resolution. The distortion measurement is better AND it's significantly wider. 15mm is nothing to scoff at.

That, and the build quality improved and the IS improved. Seems, like a significant upgrade to me.

Where has the resolution been improved, other than the extreme corners? The 17-85 actually has the highest max center resolution at every focal length.

Not saying the 15-85 isn't better, but it certainly isn't embarassing the 17-85

Post #4, Mar 18, 2010 12:11:05


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
Beachcomber ­ Joe
Senior Member
Joined Jan 2010
465 posts
Southwest Florida
[MORE/SHARE]

tkbslc wrote in post #9822049external link
Am I missing something here? Is the 15-85 overhyped, or is the 17-85 really not as bad as people like to say?

Yes to both questions. The 17-85 has always been one of those lenses that some posters like to bash, mostly those who have never owned one. In the real world, I find my copy of the 17-85 to be just fine, a great walk around lens.

Post #5, Mar 18, 2010 12:19:00




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Invertalon's Avatar
Joined Jun 2009
6,416 posts
Cleveland, OH
[MORE/SHARE]

My 17-85 was great.... The girlfriend is using it now :D

Extremely sharp on the long end and just fine on the wide. Never had an issue with it!

Post #6, Mar 18, 2010 12:38:20


-Steve
Facebookexternal link
Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
FuturamaJSP
Goldmember
FuturamaJSP's Avatar
Joined Oct 2009
1,880 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

Have to agree with Invertalon here.
I also had a 17-85 and I loved it the only thing I hated about it is it's narrow aperture and a bit soft wide open at 85mm but judging from the reviews I have read the newer version hasn't really improved much on those areas either and certainly not worth the extra 350 bucks

Post #7, Mar 18, 2010 13:41:40


They asked me how well I understood theoretical physics. I said I had a theoretical degree in physics. They said welcome aboard! - Fallout New Vegas
blah blah blah
DAexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
toxic
Goldmember
Joined Nov 2008
3,498 posts
California
[MORE/SHARE]

There is more to perceived IQ than just test chart resolution figures. Photozone's tests measure resolution, not contrast or acutance. SLRGear is better in this regard, since their blur measurements include both resolution and acutance.

Also, the 1% less distortion is significant, and especially so because the 15-85 is wider.

Post #8, Mar 18, 2010 13:44:02




LOG IN TO REPLY
borism
Goldmember
borism's Avatar
Joined Jul 2008
3,375 posts
Florida, Weston
[MORE/SHARE]

The two issues the 17-85 are distortion at the wide end And unjustified bashing from people that probably haven't even used it ever and enjoy repeating what they once read.
The 17-85 is a nice lens very competent lens.
Having said that. The 15-85 is a newer better suited lens with less distortion at a wider end and sharper corners. Nicer IS and build and yes is sharper wide open With nicer colors and contrast IMO.
It basically is what the 17-85 should have been from the begining.
I really enjoy this lens.
But again the 17-85 is a very competent lens IMO.

Post #9, Mar 18, 2010 14:00:17 as a reply to toxic's post 16 minutes earlier.


Nikon D600 some zooms some primes a couple of flashes and a Canon G15

LOG IN TO REPLY
eelnoraa
Goldmember
Joined May 2007
1,597 posts
[MORE/SHARE]

The difference has been overblown out of proportion. 17-85IS isn't a bad lens at all, I have owned one before for 2 years. Actually for crop body, I prefer this lens much over the 17-40L. I even prefer this over 24-105L. And now I have FF, this lens was sold

Post #10, Mar 18, 2010 14:18:32


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

LOG IN TO REPLY
bongEstrella
Senior Member
Joined Apr 2009
602 posts
Mechanicsburg, PA
[MORE/SHARE]

Juza Nature Photography reviewed this lens and compared it to 17-85 and sigma 18-125..

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om ...85_17-85_sigma_18-125.htmexternal link

Post #11, Mar 19, 2010 12:20:37


My Galleryexternal link
For Sale: 60d, 15-85
Feedback

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Sharpmaxell
Senior Member
Sharpmaxell's Avatar
Joined Dec 2008
842 posts
Lexington, KY
[MORE/SHARE]

i just got my 17-85 yesterday and i like it already. i havent used it that much yet but it seems pretty sharp with a fast focus.

Post #12, Mar 19, 2010 12:26:24


Gripped 50D | ∑ 17-70 f2.8-4 OS HSM | 55-250 f4-5.6 IS | 50 f1.8 mk I | 430EX II

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

bongEstrella wrote in post #9829466external link
Juza Nature Photography reviewed this lens and compared it to 17-85 and sigma 18-125..

http://www.juzaphoto.c​om ...85_17-85_sigma_18-125.htmexternal link

Nice, thanks. It seems he might agree with me

From Juza:

The new Canon 15-85 is a great zoom; it improves both image and built quality in comparison with its predecessor. Is it worth the price? Personally, I think it is a bit overpriced...$ 720 is a lot for a 3.5-5.6 zoom, in spite of the good quality. That said, I expect the price to come down with time, and overall I like this lens. If you have a limited budget and you want something similar, don't forget the old Canon 17-85 - it is much cheaper and it comes close to the quality of 15-85!

So while the 15-85 is better, the 17-85 was not that bad and the 17-85 is better on the long end while the 15-85 is better at the wide end.

Post #13, Mar 19, 2010 12:29:33


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
Cream of the Crop
msowsun's Avatar
Joined Jul 2007
8,427 posts
Oakville Ont. Canada
[MORE/SHARE]

tkbslc wrote in post #9829534external link
From Juza:

So while the 15-85 is better, the 17-85 was not that bad and the 17-85 is better on the long end while the 15-85 is better at the wide end.

I disagree with that statement. Where in Juza's review did you see it?

The 15-85 is not overhyped. It is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. The 17-85 is sharp once you stop down, but not wide open.

Check out these SLR Gear charts:

http://www.slrgear.com ...non17-85f4-56/tloader.htmexternal link

http://www.slrgear.com ...15-85f35-56is/tloader.htmexternal link

Post #14, Mar 19, 2010 12:29:55


Mike Sowsun / S110 / SL1 / 5D Mk III / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 18-135mm STM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / EF 100mm 2.8 Macro USM / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF Extender 1.4x II /
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostreamexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
THREAD ­ STARTER
Cream of the Crop
Joined Nov 2008
24,529 posts
Utah, USA
[MORE/SHARE]

msowsun wrote in post #9829536external link
No, the 15-85 is not overhyped. It is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. The 17-85 is sharp once you stop down, but not wide open.

Check out these SLR Gear charts:

http://www.slrgear.com ...non17-85f4-56/tloader.htmexternal link

http://www.slrgear.com ...15-85f35-56is/tloader.htmexternal link

I have seen those links, but they don't seem to match up with photozone, the Juzaphoto test linked above, or the real world samples you see. So who do you beleive?

Not trying to be difficult, but really trying to decide if the 15-85 is worth the relatively high price over a 17-85 kit resale in the $300 range.

Post #15, Mar 19, 2010 12:32:09


Taylor
Galleries: Flickrexternal link
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

LOG IN TO REPLY


LIST NEARBY THREADS
32,718 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-85 vs 15-85 - overhyped?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses



NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO FORUMS

CHANGE BODY TEXT SIZE FOR ALL THREAD PAGES
POWERED BY AMASS 1.0version 1.0
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net


SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF  |  JUMP TO FORUM...  |  FORUM RULES


Spent 0.00079 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
729 guests, 563 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014
Latest registered member is pscott426t

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality, we do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browser's data storage methods.