Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Jan 2011 (Sunday) 17:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Thinking of moving from 17-55 to 15-85... advise needed...

 
musashi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Jan 31, 2011 08:37 |  #16

you guys are funny. i never mentioned anything about the 17-55's build quality. actually i dont mind it. i used to baby my old 18-55 IS like its a $1K lens. only reason i went with 17-55 instead of the 15-85 is because of the f-stop. the range is not that limiting to me coz its already plenty wide at 17 and when i need longer, i just pull out the 70-200. when i used to have the 55-250, i find it that 55 vs 85 is not that much difference for me. but the 2.8 vs 5.6 on the long end is.

thanks again for the replies guys. like i already said, i will re-evaluate when my lens comes back from canon. im just glad that if i do swap out to 15-85, that i will not be disappointed.


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
musashi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Jan 31, 2011 08:39 |  #17

artyman wrote in post #11747192 (external link)
The 15-85 is a superb lens, it's only downside is it's not f2.8, however if you want fast you have to sacrifice versatilty. For me the 15-85 wins hands down

thats super sharp artyman!!!;) but if i get this lens i will be using it indoors a lot, paired with my flash. do you have any low light or flash shot samples?


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Katalyst
Senior Member
Avatar
812 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2010
Location: The Netherlands
     
Jan 31, 2011 08:40 |  #18

Only if you need the reach or the build quality... The loss in light would be a pain in the, well atleast in my, ass!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
District_History_Fan
Goldmember
2,286 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2008
     
Jan 31, 2011 08:42 |  #19

diffuser wrote in post #11745252 (external link)
Is the 15-85 really on par with the 17-55 IQ wise?

Yes, in regard to sharpness.


www.ericmcferrin.smugm​ug.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
litlefiter
Member
217 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Singapore
     
Jan 31, 2011 09:33 |  #20

musashi wrote in post #11748066 (external link)
thats super sharp artyman!!!;) but if i get this lens i will be using it indoors a lot, paired with my flash. do you have any low light or flash shot samples?

I have the 15-85 and i shoot indoors quite often (ie. parties, family gatherings, etc.) but i also do a ton of street shooting. When i am indoors i pair it with my 430ex and it gives me pretty decent results. But it definitely cannot beat flash gun + constant f2.8 indoors.

Evaluate if u shoot outdoors enough to warrant the change to get the extra wide end and the extra 30mm at the long end. For me it was easy because when i had the 18-55, i was always complaining about how restricting 18mm was n how short 55mm was. the 15-85 was a perfect fit and the USM was the just the cherry on top of the icing.

In low light, the lens focuses quite accurately and quickly, just about as fast as the 17-55 in low light. When shooting at nite, the quality of your pictures comes down to how u manage your settings and how you diffuse/ bounce the flash. A good mastery of these techniques will guarantee u get good pics indoor regardless of your lenses' aperture.


Matthew Yeo :D
flickr (external link)
550D|Σ18-35|100L|A7|Σ35

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,272 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 364
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Jan 31, 2011 10:21 |  #21

I have been kicking around this same idea recently, so it is interesting to read everyone's thoughts. My reason for considering the switch is a little different than the OP's -- I have added a 28mm f/1.8 prime to my kit for indoor use, so the f/2.8 of the 17-55 is no longer as big a selling point for me. The 15-85 would provide a better focal length match when traveling with either my 70-200 f/4 or 100-400L lens, and I may feel more comfortable leaving the 10-22mm at home, thereby lightening my traveling load.

I'm still not sure I want to give up the f/2.8 when traveling, though, as I generally leave the Speedlite at home. Most of my traveling photos are outdoors -- landscapes and wildlife -- but occasionally I have a need to shoot indoors.

Decisions, decisions.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jaxn
Member
84 posts
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Nashville
     
Jan 31, 2011 10:25 |  #22

diffuser wrote in post #11745398 (external link)
No one doubts the quality of glass, but the fact that you're paying L glass price for non-L glass build is what gets to me, guess it's a psychological thing.

I've heard this before, but I disagree. You're paying for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS and USM. An L lens of that caliber would be easily 50% more expensive.


5Diii | 7D | EF 16-35L ii | EF 24-70L ii | EF 70-200L ii | EF 100L | TS-E 24L ii | EF 85L ii | 600EX-RT x2
flickr (external link)
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ofafeather
Senior Member
645 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Ancramdale, NY
     
Jan 31, 2011 11:31 |  #23

jaxn wrote in post #11748691 (external link)
I've heard this before, but I disagree. You're paying for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 with IS and USM. An L lens of that caliber would be easily 50% more expensive.

Not to mention that it doesn't exist!

The 17-55 is a great lens, though. I love mine but am also decided on some changes. I just added the 24-105L into the mix and have to decided what to swap out. I think the 17-55 is going to go, leaving me with the sig 10-20 to cover the wide and and the 30 1.4 to cover low light.


Canon 7D, 5D Mark II and some Stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
musashi
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
795 posts
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Winchester, CA / San Diego, CA / North Hollywood, CA
     
Jan 31, 2011 11:38 |  #24

ofafeather wrote in post #11749063 (external link)
Not to mention that it doesn't exist!

The 17-55 is a great lens, though. I love mine but am also decided on some changes. I just added the 24-105L into the mix and have to decided what to swap out. I think the 17-55 is going to go, leaving me with the sig 10-20 to cover the wide and and the 30 1.4 to cover low light.

I thought about this. But the thing that i came up with is that will be more lens changes that im willing to do. But for my needs, indoor or outdoor, 17-55 + 580 ex ii is more than enough. Less swapping lenses and more captured photos.


“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”

--==Gear List & Feedback==--

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyman
Sleepless in Hampshire
Avatar
14,412 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 73
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Hampshire UK
     
Jan 31, 2011 11:52 |  #25

I don't do a lot of lowlight shooting and what's a flash :D I did shoot this in lowish light though :)

IMAGE: http://****/c3whur/jan/IMG_3848.jpg

Art that takes you there. http://www.artyman.co.​uk (external link)
Ken
Canon 7D, 350D, 15-85, 18-55, 75-300, Cosina 100 Macro, Sigma 120-300

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
guntoter
Goldmember
Avatar
2,409 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 76
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Knoxville, Tn
     
Jan 31, 2011 12:50 |  #26

musashi wrote in post #11749111 (external link)
I thought about this. But the thing that i came up with is that will be more lens changes that im willing to do. But for my needs, indoor or outdoor, 17-55 + 580 ex ii is more than enough. Less swapping lenses and more captured photos.

Kind of the same way I am thinking. My fast primes are going to be used more on action sport in low light gyps & special low light situations where the 2.8 just won't cut it.

The 17-55 + 580 ex II is a good combo.


Joel
GEAR
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
anothernewb
Senior Member
Avatar
361 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 39
Joined Jan 2009
Location: MN, USA
     
Jan 31, 2011 13:35 |  #27

I upgraded from the kit lens to the 15-85. I was able to use both the 17-55 and the 15-85 at the same time. My skills are limited, but as to my experience I noted the following on the XS body I had at the time.

I could not tell IQ apart at identical lens settings Contrast, and sharpness. both were far superior to the kit lens. I think they both out resolved the XS sensor

both lenses focused very fast, and accurate. I had no USM lenses previous to them so all I can say is that compared to what I had on hand - they were both lightning fast, telling the difference between the two was impossible for me.

I did notice that the 17-55 id flare more than the 15-85. I felt that 15-85 was more forgiving of photographer position if you're a little less experienced.

weight between the two was pretty close at least in a day of "real feel" type testing

outdoors, in the daylight both lenses are excellent. at night both also focus well, but the 17-55 produced nicer photos due to the larger aperture allowing lower iso all factors being equal. but again, when I was taking shots of the cookout. the yard lights and firelight created a few streaks in the image.

at the end of the day I went with the 15-85 for 2 main reasons:
1. for some reason the 15-85 felt like a more useful range for me - it wasn't until much later that I realized that the P&S I had learned on (first camera -ever) had a 35mm eq. zoom range of 28-140. no wonder. my only experience with cameras was a nearly identical range.

2. after looking at the kind of pictures I liked the most and kept the most often - I realized that I was likely for long into the future going to be a daytime outdoor fun-in-the sun photographer. with a little bit of indoor party and odds and ends snapshots mixed in. I had a good flash and know a little bit (well, a really little bit) of how to use it so for me the low light just wasn't as important as the range. 15-85 is an awfully handy range for the occasional family camping/travel weekend. The less stuff to take along, the better.

as I get better and add more challenging situations to my shooting, I will probably realize the added benefits of the larger apertures. Hwever for now I feel that a simple fast prime will take care of most of my current needs


Gripped 80D,10-18 STM, 55-250 IS STM, 15-85 IS USM, 85 1.8, 10-400 II, 430 EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
raypil
Mostly Lurking
16 posts
Joined Jan 2011
     
Jan 31, 2011 19:26 |  #28

The 15-85 isn't perfect. It isn't F2.8 and it isn't L grade, but it's sharp and has a range that makes it oh so convenient.


Ray 7D, 15-85, 70-300, 10-24, 580EX2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 31, 2011 20:03 |  #29

diffuser wrote in post #11745252 (external link)
Is the 15-85 really on par with the 17-55 IQ wise? I have a hard time pulling the trigger for the 17-55 due to its sub-par build (for the price)...

Yes, The 15-85 is pretty much one of the sharpest lenses I've used...its optically absolutely astounding, the only weaknesses being a bit of distortion at 15mm (However, despite reviewers complaints, its normal for the class) and some vignetting

I happen to have this 100% crop handy

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …raphy/blowingsm​oke100.png (external link)


IMAGE: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4113/5074449230_619227bd67_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​074449230/  (external link)
Blowing Smoke (external link) by Kenjis9965 (external link), on Flickr

As for low light, I never really loved the 17-55, I admit it, I find the 15-85 just as useful..and for the situations i want the isolation and etc i have a 50mm f/1.4 that does it better, I also have a flash but im rubbish with it and frequently cant use it

Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mtimber
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,011 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Cambs, UK
     
Jan 31, 2011 20:06 |  #30

I have a 17-55 and "had" a 15-85.

The quality of image of my copies did not compare.

I have passed on my 15-85, which was a decent lens.

But the 17-55 is not going anywhere...


You'll be late for everything because the light was right and the action was good (magoosmc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,230 views & 0 likes for this thread
Thinking of moving from 17-55 to 15-85... advise needed...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is countrygirl67
867 guests, 262 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.