EF-S 15-85 vs EF-S 18-135 Nano USM....

I was strolling around the used camera lens market online, and I found out that these lenses both have a very similar price range. On average, the 18-135 nano is priced on average 20 USD more expensive than the 15-85, and now I'm having a difficult decision on which to have for travel. I can spare bringing one a half lens in my bag (the half being the 24mm pancake), so I kept questioning myself whether I need the extra 15mm width, or take the extra 135mm tele range...

Looking at the quick specifications, I do see both has a similar IS capability, and both have ring USM, and they both have great image quality for their price, but nothing else. I'd prefer to pick one with less distortion because I might get more urban life shots and some architecture shots when I travel two months later. I plan on getting some portraits or candids too from a future cosplay event, but I do not know how crowded the event will be since this will be my first time going to such an event outside of my hometown.

I have owned the 18-135 STM and the nanoUSM. Still have the nanoUSM version. Both were really good general purpose crop lenses. Good IQ and fast (really fast with the nanoUSM) and accurate AF.

Hmm? I've never really considered a 15-85. Sounds pretty nice with its 24-135mm effective focal length and a very reasonable used price. Here's a review from my go-to reviewer. The review came out before the release of the 18-135 nano, so no direct comparisons.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …6-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

I do very much like my 18-135 nano and its 29-216 EFL. It's not very wide on the wide end, so I usually carry an EFS 10-22 to round out my APS-C kit. With those 2 lenses I can cover a 16-216mm effective range.

Here's my guy on the 18-135 nano. He uses the 15-85 in some of the comparison charts, but he never mentions it in the text. Maybe that's why I never considered it.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com …-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens.aspx

I find the 18-135 to be about perfect for a travel lens on a crop body. I will generally that this lens plus a EF-S 24mm f2.8 for some low light capability as a very lightweight travel kit.

I just realized I have bought online a 15-85 before posting, and I got to touch and try a 15-85 I bought, but I plan to ask for a refund due to the IS being dead, so I guess I still have decisions on the nano.

It does feel... significanly heavy, compared to the pancake + ultrawide I used to bring everywhere. Handholding this or the 18-135 nano would feel much different than what I'm used to. I do like the size, it fits well on my current small bag. One thing about the 15-85 that I should've notice is the odd filter size. 67mm filters are cheaper and easier to get than 72mm.

I have both
I much prefer the 15 vs the 18
Since i have the 15 85 i rarely need to take out the 10 20 sigma i have
Both have good IQ
For cityscape the 15 85 is a great walk around lens 18 is not wide enough at times

omer wrote in post #19405659
I have both
I much prefer the 15 vs the 18
Since i have the 15 85 i rarely need to take out the 10 20 sigma i have
Both have good IQ
For cityscape the 15 85 is a great walk around lens 18 is not wide enough at times

I'll second that. On vacation (or anywhere I want wide) the 15-85 is my default walk-around lens. The extra 3mm on the wide end makes a huge difference.

Rod

omer wrote in post #19405659
I have both
I much prefer the 15 vs the 18
Since i have the 15 85 i rarely need to take out the 10 20 sigma i have
Both have good IQ
For cityscape the 15 85 is a great walk around lens 18 is not wide enough at times

RodS57 wrote in post #19406197
I'll second that. On vacation (or anywhere I want wide) the 15-85 is my default walk-around lens. The extra 3mm on the wide end makes a huge difference.

Rod

That is my experience as well.

My 15-85 is my travel lens and I rarely need to use my 10-18 or 55-250.

For a little while I owned the 15-85 USM, 18-135 STM, and 18-135 USM. I sold the two 18-135s and kept the 15-85.

"urban life shots and some architecture shots".
IMO, you don't need tele end for it.
10-18 with 18-55 is better choice, IMO.
Personally, I use 16-35 L f2.8 MKII on my 500D and it is awesome travel and do it all lens. I'm not afraid of using flash and tripod.
L makes big difference on colors rendering. IMO.

kf095 wrote in post #19406378
"urban life shots and some architecture shots".
IMO, you don't need tele end for it.
10-18 with 18-55 is better choice, IMO.

I understand your thoughts, but as stated on the original post, I plan to go to a future cosplay event with portraits and candids in mind, so the tele end will certainly be used.


Thanks everyone for the inputs! I rarely see any sample images of the 15-85 compared to the 18-135 nano, so I have no idea how different they will perform, both on image quality and image stabilization capability. I will believe that the 15mm end will be used much more, considering I often have my 10-22 as a walkaround along with my 24mm pancake.

You don't need tele for candids and full body portraits during events. On the crop body even more so. 56mm FOV is fine for H&S portraits too.

It is very common mistake among beginners to assume they need tele to photograph candids and portraits during events.

I could only see the reason for it, if is rundown and you can't get close. But in this case, it is not worth it anyway. Yet, cosplays I went were no rundown and I have to get close.

Huh I guess you have a point if I do get up close to them., still, preparing for occasional tele shots even for outside of portraits isn't a bad thing, you know.