Canon's EF-S 15-85: A little-known gem?

I do most of my shooting now with a 7D2 and a 100-400 II. I normally use a 5D3 + 24-105L for wider shots. But I wanted a wider lens for the 7D2 so that I wasn't always carrying two bodies.

To make a long story short, I bought the EF-S 15-85 at the recommendation of the sales guy at my local camera store. He felt that the images from that lens on the 7D2 would be every bit as good as the 5D3 + 24-105L. Although I didn't believe him, I bought the lens anyhow because the store has a good return policy.

I took a few shots in the back yard that evening, and I started to think that maybe the salesman was right. The next day I took both cameras to a local nature preserve and took about 20 scenes with both the 7D2/15-85 and the 5D3/24-105L. After downloading the pictures and doing some pixel-peeping, I'm a believer. If anything, I would give a slight edge to the 7D2/15-85 images.

This surprised me very much. For those of you that have had this lens for a while, do you think my initial impression is correct?

Regards, Jim

This is the simple answer--Yes!

This is a great travel lens for APS-C cameras that is at least the equal to the 24-105 for full frames. Only drawback is the variable f-stop, but it is no hindrance if you use good technique.

try those shots at ISOs above 800 and what do you see? rhetorical question BTW

advaitin wrote in post #17465154
This is the simple answer--Yes!

This is a great travel lens for APS-C cameras that is at least the equal to the 24-105 for full frames. Only drawback is the variable f-stop, but it is no hindrance if you use good technique.

My 15-85 is usually fixed aperture. F/5.6 most of the time. F/8 when I need it. Excellent lens, BTW.

ed rader wrote in post #17465169
try those shots at ISOs above 800 and what do you see? rhetorical question BTW

I assume you are referring to the 7D2/15-85 vs 5D3/24-105. Are you implying that there is that much difference at ISO 800? In the raw files, maybe. I regularly use my 60D at 3200, and 6400 comes out rather nicely if I get the exposure right. I don't see much difference in well processed shots between the 60D and 6D at 3200, let alone 800. Of course, it is possible that my standards are quite low.

It is an amazingly sharp lens. When I first began my DSLR plunge, this was the lens I purchased for my T1i. It was the only lens I took on vacations, family events, etc and produced many great pictures. I missed it very much when I went FF. Great choice.

I have read quite a few people who say that the new 18-135 STM is a better choice than the 15-85. When I read this, I think..... "I'll bet these people have never used a 15-85".

I've used mine on three camera bodies: the 60D, 70D and now the 7D2. It performs very well to my eyes. I like it because it's as wide as I like to go. I have never wished for one of the very fine EF-S ultra wides because I'm fine with 15mm on a crop body.

I have no experience with full frame cameras, so I can't comment there. I can only say..... the range of the 15-85 is perfect for me for landscapes and outings where I'm not concentrating on wildlife or birds. It also works well indoors with bounced flash.

I have this lens permanently mounted to my C100.

I spent a lot of research time trying to find the perfect lens that could do 90% of what I wanted and this was it - just leave the lens at 5.6 if you want to keep things simple and the focal range covered, especially at 15mm, covers almost every situation.

This lens, on a crop obviously, is one of Canon's sharpest lens produced - period. If you want to see proof, head over to slrgear.com and look at the Blur index chart - it is tack sharp in the middle at every focal length and every aperture - at F8 at 35mm it might be the sharpest lens on Earth.

Two thumbs up for this lens. And, it was sold as a kit lens so there are many to be had out there virtually unused and for a few hundred dollars.

I think "little-known" is a stretch; it gets a lot of love here.

Thanks, everyone, for the feedback. It's nice to hear that the lens really is that good.

Phoenixkh wrote in post #17465651
I have read quite a few people who say that the new 18-135 STM is a better choice than the 15-85. When I read this, I think..... "I'll bet these people have never used a 15-85".

If you believe the Digital-Picture.com website, the two lenses are pretty much equal in image quality, with each lens having its better focal lengths. I think the choice between the two should be based on which is more important - the 15-18 short end or the 85-135 long end.

Here is a link to Digital Picture, comparing the lenses.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

Personally I find the short end more useful. My 10-22 has been feeling neglected since I got the 15-85.

Yes! That is one canon lens I kept for my 7D.

Yes, it is that good. But I am still questioning the need to have this lens when one has a full frame camera with a great lens with a similar FOV and similar IQ, like your 5D3 and the 24-105. The IQ of the 5D3 beats that of a crop camera.

I had the 15-85, it was my main lens on the 70D. I sold it when I added the 6D with the 24-105. The crop camera is used only with a long telephoto for "reach".

Lbsimon wrote in post #17465949
Yes, it is that good. But I am still questioning the need to have this lens when one has a full frame camera with a great lens with a similar FOV and similar IQ, like your 5D3 and the 24-105. The IQ of the 5D3 beats that of a crop camera.

.

According to the OP, maybe not.

I believe there is something wrong here if an IQ of a crop camera beats that of a FF, particularly of the 5D3.