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 16 Nov 2011 (Wednesday) 04:52
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 ???

 
T2i4me
Goldmember
Avatar
2,905 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Surf City, CA
     
Nov 16, 2011 11:35 |  #16

If you plan on a lot of low light use then the 17-55 F2.8, if you want more versatility and good daylight performance then 15-85mm. I believe both are fairly equal on sharpness so it's more of an issue of your needs. I cary the 15-85, 70-200 and 430EXII in a messenger bag and very rarely find a need for anything more.


-- Eric --
5DC - T2i - 100-400 L IS - 70-200 F4 L - 17-40 L - EF 85 1.8 - EF-S 10-22 - EF-S 15-85 IS - EF-S 60 macro - 430EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Preeb
Goldmember
Avatar
2,600 posts
Gallery: 102 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 673
Joined Sep 2011
Location: Logan County, CO
     
Nov 16, 2011 12:14 as a reply to  @ T2i4me's post |  #17

I chose the 17-55 f2.8 for the added speed and for the constant aperture. For me it's a near perfect walk around lens, and I still have the 60mm and 70-200 (w/ 1.4 tc it's 98-280) when the need arises. The speed matters more to me in a general purpose lens than the slight extra range. In most cases I can move if necessary to change the framing, but there are many situations where adding more light is impossible.


Rick
6D Mark II - EF 17-40 f4 L -- EF 100mm f2.8 L IS Macro -- EF 70-200 f4 L IS w/1.4 II TC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Stir ­ Fry ­ A ­ Lot
Senior Member
679 posts
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Berkeley, Ca
     
Nov 16, 2011 13:04 |  #18

Maybe a Sigma 17-50 and an 85 1.8? That's still less than the Canon. However if you want that best of the best IQ go with the 17-55.


Flickr (external link)
5D3 | 5Dc | 7D | Tok 16-28 | 24-105 | 17-55 | 70-200 f4 IS | Pancake 40 | Sigma 50 | 85 1.8 | Yongnuo 565EX | Demb Flash Bracket | DiffuseIt Bounce Card | Manfrotto 535 CF Tripod | 2x Yongnuo YN560s | 2x PBL Softbox Umbrellas | CyberSync Triggers | Epson R3000 | A very understanding wife

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bresdogsr
Member
85 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2008
Location: South Jersey
     
Nov 17, 2011 20:22 |  #19

I have the 15-85. Just had it in Disney for a week used it with my 430 EX at night time for parades etc. It was the right range for me. To me the benefit of the 17-55 is the constant aperature and more bokeh.


Rebel XSi, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 50 f1.8, Nifty 250, Canon 70-210 f3.5-4.5 USM, Canon 430EX, Optech strap, Rebel XT film Still learning

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Simpleboy
Member
197 posts
Joined Aug 2007
     
Nov 17, 2011 21:44 |  #20

Im currently traveling and am using a 10-22, 17-55 and 70-200 f4 IS with a flash.

The 17-55 is on my camera most of the time, I have noticed though, when i want it to be wider, I swap to the 10-22 and shoot it much wider. Even though i could just simply shoot at 15mm on the 10-22 I find myself stepping forward and shooting more in the 10-12 range to get a different type of perspective for the shot. I also seldom notice the 55-70mm gap in zoom range. The 17-55 is also good enough to shoot at 55 then crop to 'zoom' in without noticable loss in quality.

So looking towards the future, do you see yourself wanting an UWA?
I believe that if you buy a 15-85 and then find yourself wanting wider than 15mm and get a 10-22 or something similar, you will then will then wish you got the 17-55 for its better low light performance.
To me, the difference between swapping lenses because you want wider than 17mm and wanting wider than 15mm is not really a point in favor of the 15-85.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Nov 17, 2011 21:50 |  #21

Not the first thread on this and there's no one right answer. The 15-85 has better range, slightly better build quality, newer IS, currently $369 lower price (B&H) , bit smaller and lighter. The 2.8 obviously has 2.8. IQ I think is very good for both. For not much extra money you can get a 15-85 and a used Sigma 30 1.4 (or Canon 28mm). For many uses - indoors dark without flash - 2.8 may not be wide enough anyway.


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Skul
Member
92 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2011
Location: SE Texas
     
Nov 17, 2011 21:55 |  #22

Sir, you're buying a very nice camera body.
Buy good glass to put in front of it.
Many sellers will cut you a break on a package deal if you ask them.
It's going to cost, don't get me wrong.
Don't short change yourself right off the bat.
Go for good mid-range or if you can afford it, high end glass.
You won't regret it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lungdoc
Goldmember
Avatar
2,101 posts
Likes: 1
Joined May 2006
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
     
Nov 17, 2011 22:06 |  #23

Skul wrote in post #13415752 (external link)
Sir, you're buying a very nice camera body.
Buy good glass to put in front of it.
Many sellers will cut you a break on a package deal if you ask them.
It's going to cost, don't get me wrong.
Don't short change yourself right off the bat.
Go for good mid-range or if you can afford it, high end glass.
You won't regret it.

Hmm, is that in iambic pentameter :) (very short lines looks somewhat poetic).

Good advice, but hardly useful here. These are both excellent lenses and considered "good glass", very highly analogous to the comparison of 24-70 2.8 ad 24-105 for FF - both good glass, differing advantages.

The Digital Picture review compares them well here (external link)


Mark
My Smugmug (external link) Eos 7D, Canon G1X II, Canon 15-85 IS, Canon 17-85 IS, Sigma 100-300 EX IF HSM, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 85mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro, Sigma 50-150 2.8, Sigma 1.4 EX DG , Sigma 24-70 F2.8 DG Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22, Canon 430EX,

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,108 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Aug 2009
     
Nov 18, 2011 00:06 |  #24

I have the 18-55IS and have used it only for travel. Do you see a large difference in the optics of the two lenses under discussion and this relatively inexpensive lens?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
maverick14
Member
79 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Aug 2010
Location: CHCH, New Zealand
     
Nov 18, 2011 00:22 |  #25

raavi wrote in post #13407072 (external link)
Field of view

15mm
X=73° 0‘ 29"
Y=52° 31‘ 16"

17mm
X=66° 17‘ 20"
Y=47° 3‘ 0"

2mm is significant @ wide-end.

Dont forget thats a nikon site so the crop factor is 1.5x and not the 1.6 of a canon




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
boingy
Goldmember
1,052 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Sacramento, CA
     
Nov 18, 2011 00:32 |  #26

Tough one...I would probably choose the 17-55 personally, but the range of the 15-85 and great MFD is hard to resist unless you absolutely can't stand a variable apeture...


Flickr (external link)
Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MPCman
Senior Member
858 posts
Likes: 22
Joined May 2008
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
     
Nov 18, 2011 02:58 |  #27

It all depends on what you will use it for!

I had the intention to buy the 17-55 2.8 but got a deal of a 7D with 15-85 that was too good to pass up. Now that I have it I would not want to part with it.

Other then range, the smaller size is also very convienient from my point of view. I put it on my 400d and took the combo on wintersport. I put it in a chest/stomach mounted holster and often forgot it was there while skiing.
The media markt amsterdam arena has both in stock, you could easily grab both side by side and check yourself how they compare in terms of size, built quality etc.

F2.8 is nice, but the more I start looking at the example pics of the 17-55 on crop vs other F2.8 or larger lenses on FF, the more I have the feeling that I should add a FF body to my collection for DoF/bokeh reasons.


7D, EOS-M, 100-400 L, 15-85, Tokina 11-16 2.8, EF-M 11-22, 55-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
commit ­ confirm
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
17 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Amsterdam
     
Nov 18, 2011 03:21 |  #28

Thanks for the input guys. I don't feel any closer to resolution though. You've pretty much confirmed what I already though; you pay's your money and take your choice.

I think im going to wait and get the 70-200 to start with and spend the rest of the money on Christmas.


7D | G12 | 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM | 100 f/2.8 L Macro | 70-200 f/2.8 L mk2 | 50mm f/1.4 | 270EX II | 430EX II
Likes: Low light, UW, time lapse, panoramic, street and moody b+w

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MPCman
Senior Member
858 posts
Likes: 22
Joined May 2008
Location: Amsterdam, the Netherlands
     
Nov 18, 2011 03:41 |  #29

In case you didn't know, check out the cashback action:
https://ecback.canon.n​l/ (external link)
When you buy a 70-200 F4 IS together with a body, you get 150 euro cashback on the lens.


7D, EOS-M, 100-400 L, 15-85, Tokina 11-16 2.8, EF-M 11-22, 55-200

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
commit ­ confirm
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
17 posts
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Amsterdam
     
Nov 18, 2011 03:50 |  #30

Thanks MPCman


7D | G12 | 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM | 100 f/2.8 L Macro | 70-200 f/2.8 L mk2 | 50mm f/1.4 | 270EX II | 430EX II
Likes: Low light, UW, time lapse, panoramic, street and moody b+w

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

9,581 views & 0 likes for this thread
EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 or EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 ???
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 gardenchefs
1139 guests, 330 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.