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 03 Nov 2013 (Sunday) 12:58
Search threadPrev/next
POLL: "Which would you choose?"
17-55 f2.8
109
72.7%
15-85
41
27.3%

150 voters, 150 votes given (1 choice only choices can be voted per member)). VOTING IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY.
BROWSE ALL POLLS
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Opinions: 17-55 f2.8 or 15-85??

 
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,888 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Nov 23, 2013 18:19 |  #61

Eastport wrote in post #16475079 (external link)
Really? I owned the 17-55. It was overpriced for what it provided. The 18-135 STM is a bargain and, if you can live without the 2.8, is a better choice for most people.

The f/2.8 constant aperture is the main reason it's so expensive. Wide aperture zooms don't come cheap, and many do not include IS which this lens does. What did you not like about it that made this lens overpriced?


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
speedync
Goldmember
1,417 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 575
Joined May 2011
Location: Geelong, Australia
     
Nov 23, 2013 18:50 |  #62

I was extremely happy with my 15-85 on crop, with the 24mm f/2.8 IS to compliment it. So much so that I now have a 6D with the 24-105L plus 40mm f/2.8 pancake. Just seems to work for me. Every one is different, and has different expectations and uses for their gear.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eastport
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 46
Joined Apr 2009
     
Nov 23, 2013 19:44 |  #63

mwsilver wrote in post #16475097 (external link)
The f/2.8 constant aperture is the main reason it's so expensive. Wide aperture zooms don't come cheap, and many do not include IS which this lens does. What did you not like about it that made this lens overpriced?

It was $1,000. I rented and later bought the 17-40 at the same time I had owned the 17-55. I preferred the color, the sharpness of the 17-40. It cost $600.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Nov 23, 2013 20:08 |  #64

Eastport wrote in post #16475245 (external link)
It was $1,000. I rented and later bought the 17-40 at the same time I had owned the 17-55. I preferred the color, the sharpness of the 17-40. It cost $600.

2.8 with IS vs f4. justified price difference IMO.

also, I think the extra reach isn't insignificant.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 23, 2013 20:08 as a reply to  @ Eastport's post |  #65

Yep. The 17-40mm has a limited focal range, but the colour and contrast easily spank the 15-85mm. Sharpness is better at 25mm though the 15-85mm has an edge at 17mm.
Plus it has weather sealing, put it on a 7D and you can shoot in the rain. And future utility on a full frame body. I think the 17-40mm is a better buy.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,888 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Nov 23, 2013 20:27 |  #66

Jerobean wrote in post #16475281 (external link)
2.8 with IS vs f4. justified price difference IMO.

also, I think the extra reach isn't insignificant.

The main advantage of the 17-40 in my opinion is that it will also serve as an UWA if ones moves to FF. Otherwise as you point out it has a more restricted focal range, is a stop slower and does not have the 3 stops of IS of the 17-55. If one plans to stay on a crop sensor, and can live with a similarly restricted focal range as the 17-40, there is the excellent new Sigma 18-35. And while it too doesn't have OS( IS) it does have a constant aperture of f/1.8 which is 2 1/3 stops faster than the 17-40!


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Nov 23, 2013 21:05 |  #67

mwsilver wrote in post #16475307 (external link)
The main advantage of the 17-40 in my opinion is that it will also serve as an UWA if ones moves to FF. Otherwise as you point out it has a more restricted focal range, is a stop slower and does not have the 3 stops of IS of the 17-55. If one plans to stay on a crop sensor, and can live with a similarly restricted focal range as the 17-40, there is the excellent new Sigma 18-35. And while it too doesn't have OS( IS) it does have a constant aperture of f/1.8 which is 2 1/3 stops faster than the 17-40!

yeah, if i was on crop i'd be looking real hard on that 18-35. seems pretty amazing. i still think the 17-55 offers great features and if picked up 2nd hand is a decent value.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
notastockpikr
Senior Member
410 posts
Likes: 52
Joined Aug 2011
Location: Canada
     
Nov 24, 2013 00:15 |  #68

I got the 15-85 first and it is a sharp lens. As others have stated, the range is better. Then bought the 17-55 and noticed right away that the 17-55 was sharper than the 15-85.

I voted for the 17-55 because of the fixed aperture and I think it's slightly sharper. I don't think you would be dissatisfied buying either.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mwsilver
Goldmember
3,888 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 468
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Central New Jersey
     
Nov 24, 2013 00:24 |  #69

notastockpikr wrote in post #16475675 (external link)
I got the 15-85 first and it is a sharp lens. As others have stated, the range is better. Then bought the 17-55 and noticed right away that the 17-55 was sharper than the 15-85.

I voted for the 17-55 because of the fixed aperture and I think it's slightly sharper. I don't think you would be dissatisfied buying either.

It mostly a question of range vs speed. Now if they could make a 15-85 f/2.8 that wasn't huge, very heavy and very very expensive, wouldn't that be a hoot.


Mark
Canon 7D2, 60D, T3i, T2i, Sigma 18-35 f/1.8, 30 f/1.4. Canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS, EF 35 f/2 IS, EFs 10-18 STM, EFs 15-85, EFs 18-200, EF 50 f/1.8 STM, Tamron 18-270 PZD, B+W MRC CPL, Canon 320EX, Vanguard Alta Pro 254CT & SBH 250 head. RODE Stereo Videomic Pro, DXO PhotoLab Elite, ON1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chongkiat
Senior Member
287 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Nov 25, 2013 11:16 |  #70

If my 17-55mm stop down to f5.6 , can really blow 1585 away in sharpness

In the end i stil think a used 1755 is more value than the 1585 , u cant get such sharp lens with constant f2.8 while stil enjoying the IS in canon range, unless u talk about the tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc for ff lens

Shoot Wide open f2.8 in 1755 is really never dissapointed me


Canon 60D Gripped | Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM | Canon 85mm f1.8 USM | Canon 580exII
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
chongkiat
Senior Member
287 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Nov 25, 2013 11:19 |  #71

Eastport wrote in post #16475245 (external link)
It was $1,000. I rented and later bought the 17-40 at the same time I had owned the 17-55. I preferred the color, the sharpness of the 17-40. It cost $600.


Color can be always done in post process, don tell me u like to shoot straight out of camera? To turn a good pic to a great pic is need a proper post process, u ask lady gaga don make up and come out to talk with media with naked fake?


One can always change the colour but u cant change the sharpness ^_^


Canon 60D Gripped | Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS USM | Canon 85mm f1.8 USM | Canon 580exII
My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,682 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 268
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Nov 25, 2013 11:54 |  #72

chongkiat wrote in post #16478780 (external link)
If my 17-55mm stop down to f5.6 , can really blow 1585 away in sharpness
...
Shoot Wide open f2.8 in 1755 is really never dissapointed me

Can it blow away the 15-85 at 15 mm? It is one of the most important FLs for me.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eastport
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 46
Joined Apr 2009
     
Nov 25, 2013 12:18 |  #73

chongkiat wrote in post #16478785 (external link)
Color can be always done in post process, don tell me u like to shoot straight out of camera? To turn a good pic to a great pic is need a proper post process, u ask lady gaga don make up and come out to talk with media with naked fake?


One can always change the colour but u cant change the sharpness ^_^

Well, hmm, I guess that pretty much says it all.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
msowsun
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,238 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 268
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Oakville Ont. Canada
     
Nov 25, 2013 13:03 |  #74

chongkiat wrote in post #16478780 (external link)
If my 17-55mm stop down to f5.6 , can really blow 1585 away in sharpness

In the end i stil think a used 1755 is more value than the 1585 , u cant get such sharp lens with constant f2.8 while stil enjoying the IS in canon range, unless u talk about the tamron 24-70 f2.8 vc for ff lens

Shoot Wide open f2.8 in 1755 is really never dissapointed me

Sharpness is not a reason to choose one over the other. Stopping down the 17-55 to f/5.6 just equals the already sharp wide-open 15-85.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=3​&APIComp=3 (external link)


Mike Sowsun / S110 / SL1 / 80D / EF-S 24mm STM / EF-S 10-18mm STM / EF-S 18-55mm STM / EF-S 15-85mm USM / EF-S 18-135mm USM / EF-S 55-250mm STM / 5D3 / Samyang 14mm 2.8 / EF 40mm 2.8 STM / EF 50mm 1.8 STM / EF 100mm 2.0 USM / EF 100mm 2.8 USM Macro / EF 24-105mm IS / EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS Mk II / EF 1.4x II
Full Current and Previously Owned Gear List over 40 years Flickr Photostream (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mornnb
Goldmember
1,646 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 23
Joined Aug 2012
Location: Sydney
     
Nov 25, 2013 15:23 |  #75

chongkiat wrote in post #16478785 (external link)
Color can be always done in post process, don tell me u like to shoot straight out of camera? To turn a good pic to a great pic is need a proper post process, u ask lady gaga don make up and come out to talk with media with naked fake?


One can always change the colour but u cant change the sharpness ^_^

Nonsense, if you want a good result after post production it's better to start with great and realistic colour.


Canon 5D Mark III - Leica M240
EF 16-35mm F/4 IS L - EF 14mm f/2.8 L II - - EF 17mm TS-E L - EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II - EF 70-200mm IS II f/2.8 L - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art - Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX
Voigtlander 15mm III - 28mm Elmarit-M ASPH - 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M FLE - 50mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH
500px (external link)

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

11,602 views & 0 likes for this thread
Opinions: 17-55 f2.8 or 15-85??
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 dayuan99
2001 guests, 328 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.