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

carlXSI wrote in post #9470760
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

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..]

fiebru1119 wrote in post #9470795
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.

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

KenjiS wrote in post #9470873
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

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

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

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

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

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

^- 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

ggweci wrote in post #9470421
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?

Then I won't have anything to shoot with

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.

ggweci wrote in post #9470421
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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

17-55 2.8 ALL THE WAY for me

wishlf wrote in post #9583186
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?

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.