17-85 vs 15-85 - overhyped?

Accessoire wrote in post #9835038
I considered the 15-85, but for that amount of coin, I didn't like the variable aperture.
But, that is just for my type of shooting, its nice glass, for sure, just not at that price for me.

My 15-85 is a constant aperture. I shoot Av at f/5.6 and just leave it there.

leroy_sunset wrote in post #9835087
I hear good things about the 15-85mm, but you're creeping into that price range of really excellent lenses. I'm skeptical that it's good enough to justify the cost. Maybe when the used copies come down in price in a few years I'll slap one on my (by that point) outdated 7D.

The 15-85 is an excellent lens. Just as good as my other lenses. It fits perfectly between my 11-16 and 70-200 2.8 IS.

There is no other single lens, at any price, that gives you the same IQ and usability .

FREEZE wrote in post #9834830
I got the 17-85 when I bought my 50D and have been very dissapointed with the CA. I wanted the lens for more wide angle shots and have had lots of problems with CA. Logged in here thinking the 15-85 might be a better option but it sounds like the jury is still out on that one. Could anyone that has both lenses maybe give an honest comparision of CA with these two lenses.

The CA is the one thing there is no question about. It is much better.

I've had the 17-85mm. I really liked that lens. So versatile with the focal range it provides. I found a good deal on a 24-105mm L, and had to get rid of the 17-85mm because I didn't have $$ for both. I wish I could've kept both though. The only consolation I have is that I also have a 10-22mm, but I have to switch lenses, or use my feet a lot more to get that wide shot now.

I think that it is an absolutely fair question. Personally, I am debating on a a new walk-around lens. I have a 18-55 IS that has been working for me pretty well, but I would like to get better range, sharpness, contrast. I just don't know that it is worth dropping that kind of cash for a vacation lens. I tend to use primes most of the time around town. However, I am not coordinated enough to change lenses and walk at the same time, and I absolutely HATE holding up the group while taking shots on vacation. I just don't know that I hate it enough to ditch the 18-55 IS + primes. The 17-85 could be a good compromise that I have toyed with as well...

I have just purchased the 15-85, second hand for £ 170.
The guy I bought it from ( Ebay ) was upgrading to an L lens 24-105.
Exellent lens, great vaue.

I haven't read all the comments but I own and recently compared the following lenses on my 40d.....

Canon 17-85mm
Canon 15-85mm
Canon 24-105mm L
Canon 18-135mm STM

The Canon 17-85mm IQ was so inferior to the others that I didn't bother testing it extensively against the others. The other lenses were sharper at every focal length! This is confirmed at The_Digital_Picture as well via the lens tool as seen HERE.

I don't know who stated they thought it outperformed the 15-85mm at one end or the other, but they must have had a broken 15-85mm. The 17-85mm doesn't compare in any fashion nor at any point to that lens!

So the answer to the OP is: No, the differences between the 15-85mm and 17-85mm are not overhyped. The later is just an inexpensive/affordable consumer zoom lens...


Ralph

Ok, time for real life shots

Heres mine with the 15-85... Others are welcome to post up there 17-85

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/jyMD​T2

I have a 17-85 for sale. It performs just fine and for the price tag of $175 is 2/3 cheaper than a 15-85 also

I never had a problem with the 17-85's optical quality. My problem with the lens was that the autofocus failed every couple of years -- apparently a common problem with this lens. After the second failure I switched to the 15-85, which works fine. I do find the extra 2mm at the short end quite useful.

I've used the 17-85 for years, never a problem at all, great lens for the money.
Real life experience trumps a bunch of pics focused on a piece of paper with lines and circles....I've sold hundreds of copies of photos taken with that lens over the last couple of years. I can't speak to the 15-85, as I've never owned one, but the 17-85 has done me right.

Only problem I've ever heard with the 17-85 was the autofocus failing, I think a ribbon cable snapping internally, not sure if that is more than normal, or Internet sniping and an overblown issue.

Buy the lens, go take photos.

tkbslc wrote in post #9822049
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_5​0d?start=1

http://www.photozone.d​e …canon_1585_3556​is?start=1

According to DxOMark results, the 15-85mm is better in every respect except vignetting. The 15-85 has much better light transmission and is faster at the wide end. The build is also a bit better and of course the 2 extra mm on the wide end is visually significant and very useful. Lastly the 17-85 has a known ribbon cable failure issue that has affected many here. I probably would avoid a heavily used one for that reason alone.

http://www.dxomark.com …-S-17-85mm-f-4-5.6-IS-USM

http://www.dxomark.com …-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM

Wow, how did this old thread I started back in the stone age get brought back to life?

never used the 17-85, but I LOVE my 15-85.

msowsun wrote in post #9835166
There is no other single lens, at any price, that gives you the same IQ and usability .

That's how I feel about mine. People who don't own one can't appreciate how useful 15mm can be on a standard zoom. It covers more than half of the focal range of an UWA like the Canon 10-22.

mwsilver wrote in post #17171196
That's how I feel about mine. People who don't own one can't appreciate how useful 15mm can be on a standard zoom. It covers more than half of the focal range of an UWA like the Canon 10-22.

well 15mm on crop is 24mm on FF and 85mm is 135mm on FF.

Of course 15mm is useful on crop. My main reason for going to FF was to have 24-70 2.8 lens. You cannot find a 15mm-45mm 2.8 lens for a crop. I really was frustrated with 17-18mm lenses on their wide.

15-85 is perfect.... just wish it was 2.8! 17-55 is darn nice just not quite wide enough.