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 24 Jan 2010 (Sunday) 12:54
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Which option? 17-55 2.8 vs 15-85 + 85 1.8

 
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 25, 2010 20:56 |  #16

carlXSI wrote in post #9470760 (external link)
The 17-55 IS solves this with f/2.8 and IS! Also keep in mind that IS wont really help with action shots while the 2.8 will.

While true, 55 still isnt long enough sometimes :P And sometimes, even f/2.8 isnt enough which is where a prime comes in handy

The 15-85 can achieve good isolation but only when the subject is close and background is near infinity. Under most circumstances the 55 @ 2.8 will provide more isolation than 85 @ 5.6. Also, you won't always have enough room to work @ 85mm, especially indoors.

As for the op, I'd get the 17-55 and add 85 1.8 down the road.

Not true, The kitty was close yes but the rest of those were quite far, Especially the owl where i did indeed have to crop anyways even with the extra length, at 55 i woulda probubly had to forget doing anything...

And as stated, f/2.8 may not be the perfect solution, For instance with my dog her nose was already quite out of focus even at f/5, f/2.8 half her face would likely be out of focus and that wouldnt necessarily make a good picture...

Also if you like to get close to subjects and the 17-55's MFD and MM arent so good...

And I still maintain the difference between 55 and 85 is worth it, I was NEVER satisfied with the length of the 17-55...just like i was never happy with the myriad of 28-80s i had [Excepting the Sigma 24-70 I briefly owned..]


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
eelnoraa
Goldmember
1,798 posts
Likes: 37
Joined May 2007
     
Jan 25, 2010 20:59 |  #17

fiebru1119 wrote in post #9470795 (external link)
if low light is the problem i'd stick to the 85/1.8 and a wider prime (30/1.4?). f/2.8 is not fast enough for low light handheld especially if your subjects are moving!

I can only agree half of this. There are 2 kind of low light problems: 1)subject blur due to motion. 2)whole scene is blurred due camera shake.

If 1) is what you are trying to solve, then fast prime is your only hope. But as light get lower enough, even fast prime won't improve your handheldability enough, so you will get the whole scene blurred. This is #2, where IS will help you out. If you think about it, with f/2.8 and 3-stop IS, 17-55IS is the most handheldable lens existed today.


5Di, 5Diii, 28, 50, 85, 16-35II, 24-105, 70-200F2.8 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
merp
Senior Member
490 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2006
     
Jan 25, 2010 21:04 as a reply to  @ eelnoraa's post |  #18
bannedPermanently

That 17-55 is amazing. I loved mine until I moved to FF --




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carlXSI
Senior Member
315 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Jan 25, 2010 21:22 |  #19

KenjiS wrote in post #9470873 (external link)
Not true, The kitty was close yes but the rest of those were quite far, Especially the owl where i did indeed have to crop anyways even with the extra length, at 55 i woulda probubly had to forget doing anything...

And as stated, f/2.8 may not be the perfect solution, For instance with my dog her nose was already quite out of focus even at f/5, f/2.8 half her face would likely be out of focus and that wouldnt necessarily make a good picture...

Also if you like to get close to subjects and the 17-55's MFD and MM arent so good...

And I still maintain the difference between 55 and 85 is worth it, I was NEVER satisfied with the length of the 17-55...just like i was never happy with the myriad of 28-80s i had [Excepting the Sigma 24-70 I briefly owned..]

Actually it is quite true. And here are some pics to prove it.

Both are isolated quite well here because of the close subject and far background:

85mm f/5.6

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9735.jpg (external link)


50mm f/2.8
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9737.jpg (external link)



However....

85 f/5.6
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9753.jpg (external link)


50 f/2.8
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9755.jpg (external link)



And again (look at the text):

85 f/5.6
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9742.jpg (external link)


50 f/2.8
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://img.photobucket​.com …crazayaznguy/IM​G_9738.jpg (external link)


Granted you don't always want such a shallow DOF, but I'm just trying to make a point.

6D | 17-40L | 70-200L | 35 2.0 IS | 430ex II | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Jan 25, 2010 22:30 as a reply to  @ carlXSI's post |  #20

^- Agreed, Just saying, even with f/5.6 and 85mm you can still isolate..maybe not as well..

My bigger point was more sometimes that difference in focal length means more thats all


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hardserve
Hatchling
6 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Richmond Hill, Ont.
     
Jan 26, 2010 15:36 |  #21

ggweci wrote in post #9470421 (external link)
That would be great... the trouble is find a good deal here in Canada. I see you're close to me, do you want to sell me yours two lenses for a great price? :lol:

Then I won't have anything to shoot with :cry:

I upgraded to the 17-55mm from a 17-85mm just recently and notice that the images seem to have more "pop".

The current lineup of lenses in my kit were all purchased used, and luckily for me all of the sellers were honest in their descriptions. The 17-55mm does come up for sale locally (or at least from somewhere in Canada) on Kijiji, CL, Red Flag, eBay, Fred Miranda and here, but you have to keep watch. Expect to pay about $CDN850+. The 85mm not as often - but there are lots of US sellers. Of course the benefit of finding a Canadian seller is avoiding taxes when the lens crosses the border.


40D, EF-S 10-22mm, EF-S 17-55mm f2.8, Sigma 30mm f1.4, EF 85mm f1.8, Sigma 70-200mm f2.8, Sigma 1.4x, 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sirboy2001
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Jan 2010
     
Jan 31, 2010 15:10 |  #22

ggweci wrote in post #9470421 (external link)
That would be great... the trouble is find a good deal here in Canada. I see you're close to me, do you want to sell me yours two lenses for a great price? :lol:

Hi, I'm new here but I picked up a 15-85mm for around $800ish Cdn from a dealer in Ottawa. Not sure if he's got anymore but I saved around $400 Cdn ($1200ish = $999.99 + GST + PST).

Good luck with your decision ;)

http://cgi.ebay.ca …iewItem&item=13​0355438089 (external link)


Canon Rebel T1i 500D || Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM || Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II || Canon Speedlite 430ex II || Lowepro Slingshot 100 AW bag

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
brlowe
Member
149 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2008
Location: Orange County CA
     
Feb 01, 2010 09:49 |  #23

I have all 3 lenses you are thinking about. The 17-55 is a great lens and I have used it a lot. I have had the 15-85 for about 2 months now and I think it is a great walk around general purpose lens. My 17-55 has not been on the camera sense I got eh 15-85. The 85mm is also a great lens as I cannot afford the 85L lens. I have only used the 85 a few times but what I have taken with it was great.
All 3 are great lenses so you have a tough choice to make.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,585 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Feb 01, 2010 10:23 |  #24

If you are going to get the 15-85, I would pair it with a faster normal prime, instead of the 85mm f1.8. 85mm is pretty much just a long portrat lens or short telephoto on a crop camera, so it really wouldn't help serve double duty with the 15-85. I'd rather have a Sigma 30mm, Canon 28mm or Canon 35mm for shooting indoors with no flash.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
peter_co
Member
33 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Atlanta, Ga.
     
Feb 01, 2010 10:33 as a reply to  @ tkbslc's post |  #25

I actually had to make a similar decision recently (i.e. 15-85 + something later on vs 17-55mm), and I decided in favor of the 15-85. But in my case, I mostly use my camera for landscape/travel photography, so having a longer focal length range was more important a factor for me than the maximum aperture. Considering that the image quality of the two lenses is at least comparable and that the 15-85 was both lighter and somewhat less expensive helped me convince go the 15-85 route. I figure in due time I will also add either a 50mm 1.4 or the 85 1.8 for portraiture/low light situations.


Canon 450D. Canon EF-S 15-85mm, Canon EF-S 18-55mm.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MStig
Member
32 posts
Joined Jan 2009
     
Feb 10, 2010 13:19 as a reply to  @ peter_co's post |  #26

I just received a 15-85 and it's my new walkaround lens. I can't believe how sharp this lens is and how vibrant the colors are. This is a shot from our latest weekend blizzard.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


7D
55-250
15-85

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wishlf
Senior Member
405 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: new york, NY
     
Feb 10, 2010 14:56 |  #27

I bought 15-85 when it came out. I like the IQ, but don't like the fact that it's slow lens. So I returned the lens for 17-55 and love the 17-55.


K-5 [31 LTD F/1.8] [100 MACRO WR F/2.8]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Alex_Venom
Goldmember
Avatar
1,624 posts
Joined Nov 2008
     
Feb 10, 2010 15:02 |  #28

17-55 2.8 ALL THE WAY for me ;)


Photography is about GEAR and not talent or practice. Practice won't make you a better photographer. Expensive equipment will. =D
"Nobody can buy a scalpel and become a doctor, but anyone can buy a camera and become a photographer."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lazer-jock
Don't mess
Avatar
1,557 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
     
Feb 10, 2010 15:12 |  #29

wishlf wrote in post #9583186 (external link)
I bought 15-85 when it came out. I like the IQ, but don't like the fact that it's slow lens. So I returned the lens for 17-55 and love the 17-55.

I just noticed that you have the 17-55 for sale in your sig. What happened to the love? :D


I'm off lining my cage with newspaper.
My Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricky09
Member
72 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Feb 10, 2010 15:16 as a reply to  @ Alex_Venom's post |  #30

All it takes is to look/browse through the "Lens Photo Sample Archive" for these two lens (17-55 and 15-85) for you to make a decision, that's how i made my decision. The 17-55 shots look brighter and crispier. I can tell the difference immediately between my IS kit lens vs. this lens. The 15-85, on the other hand, is also sharp, but I can't see very much improvement over my kit lens other than the colors. The images are too dark and very saturated to my taste. If it was $600 or less, then its a good bargain.




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

8,600 views & 0 likes for this thread
Which option? 17-55 2.8 vs 15-85 + 85 1.8
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 Eddy3
651 guests, 331 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.