Canon EF-S 10-22 or 15-85

I'm thinking about buying one or the other of these lenses after I sell an arm and a leg and, just looking for some input as to which one might be the better choice.
Both lenses when not on sale are basically $1000(CDN) a piece.
Lens would be used on a Canon 40D.
The "widest" lens I have now is the 28-135 kit lens.
At this point, my photography interest are outdoor scenes/landscapes.

I've rented the 15-85 and liked it.
Hoping to rent the 10-22 in the next week or so.

Have seen some really impressive picture for both lenses in the lens archive.
The 10-22 is holding a slight edge advantage to me based on what I've seen.
But, I don't want to base my decision on the pictures because anyone who is really good at Photoshop etc, can make pictures look really good.
Then again, if I learned how to use Photoshop, I could possibly do the same thing.
Maybe.

For me, right now the 15-85 has a strike against it due to lens creep. To some people that's not an issue but, if I'm going to spend $1000 on a lens, it shouldn't have the creep issue. Sounds like it's a quality control issue after reading that not all of these lenses have that problem.
Has that problem been fixed on the current 15-85 lenses?

The 10-22 does not overlap the lens you already own.
The 10-22 is a really good ultrawide, that provides good color and clarity, controls CA and produces exceptional images. You can also get very creative with this wide angle lens.

Two entirely different tools. The 10-22 would complement your 28-135, while I'd view the 15-85 as a replacement.

I've got them both, they're really very different. My 15-85 has no creep. The 10-22 is really a "WOW" lens when you first use it, the amount of real estate it gathers in is amazing.

canongear wrote in post #13110992
I'm thinking about buying one or the other of these lenses after I sell an arm and a leg and

you shouldn't do that, i am serious

canongear wrote in post #13110992
But, I don't want to base my decision on the pictures because anyone who is really good at Photoshop etc, can make pictures look really good.

On what matter you will make your decision if it's not the pictures? Thats what a lens are about. Nobody will say, after seeing a great picture from you: "but you shoot it with a 15-85, thats the one with the creepy zoom and thats why i don't like it!" Nevertheless i've never seen a 15-85 with that problem and i've seen some.

Cheers
flop

crn3371 wrote in post #13111371
Two entirely different tools. The 10-22 would complement your 28-135, while I'd view the 15-85 as a replacement.

I concur! Two completely different animals. I own both and they each have their place.

The 15-85mm is a great all around lens and one that will satisfy the needs of most shooters in a lot of different situations. Mine has very little lens creep and I find it not to be an issue. I definitely would not hold that against it because it is a great lens.

The 10-22mm is more of a specialty lens for when you want to go wide to really wide. Below is an image I shot today with the 10-22mm at 10mm. Personally I am not a wide angle shooter and have used my 10-22 very little in the 6 years I have owned it but it is handy to keep around.

Only you can evaluate your needs to make a choice of what lens or lenses satisfies those needs. Both of these are great lenses and I would not be put off by any of the negatives you may have heard about either one.

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

Op if your interest are outdoor scenes/landscapes, get 10-22. Then save up for the 15-85 to replace your 28-135 as a general walkaround.

kin2son wrote in post #13111813
Op if your interest are outdoor scenes/landscapes, get 10-22. Then save up for the 15-85 to replace your 28-135 as a general walkaround.

Agreed. I have both, and they compliment each other extremely well...but neither could replace the other.

Since OP has 28-135, a little lens creep probably doesn't bother them.

But, since OP has 28-135, I'd go for the 10-22.... Or for one of the less expensive UWA third party lenses:

Sigma 10-20 (there are two versions, f4.5-5.6 and f3.5, the latter is new and more expensive)
Tokina 12-24/4 (my personal choice)
Tamron 10-24 (haven't tried it)

The Tokina is close to the Canon in image quality. It's not quite as good suppressing flare (though it's pretty darned good... the Canon is just amazingly good at it). And, of course, it's not quite as wide.

The Tokina and Sigma are, if anything, better built than the Canon.

And they are pretty much all cheaper than the Canon. In some cases, a lot cheaper.

In this case I wouldn't go for the Sigma 8-16 or Tokina 11-16, since they both leave a really big gap with your 28-135. Those are more useful, IMO, if one has an 18-whatever or 17-whatever lens.

I vote 10-22 for landscapes.

Most people say that you don't need UWA all the time for these things, and I agree. However, a lot of these people also forget that the 10-22 isn't permanently stuck at 10mm. It goes to 22, which gives an equivalent FOV of a 35mm lens, not UWA by any means.

It also complements your current lenses well.

If your budget allows, it is the best of the lot for outdoor use. If you are a bit tight on money, the sigma 10-20 won't disappoint. I only really recommend the 11-16 if you plan on shooting indoors a lot because of the aperture, otherwise you're sacrificing a lot of zoom range and flare resistance for something you won't use much.

My example of the 15-85 doesn't really exhibit any lens creep at all.

I also have the 10-22, and actually used it as a walkaround for quite some time. It's a great lens.

my god people, whats with the lens creep phobia! the lens creeps from like 35mm to 55mm, so what. Mine does it, only after reading about it here I never noticed it, how many times you gunna be shooting vertical? and how many times u gunna be walking around with it over your shoulder with it not zoomed either full out or in?

I started with the 28-135 and wanted to go a little wider, and ended up with the Canon 10-22. Its a great lens - sharp and fantastic colour. I have thought about replacing the 28-135 with a better lens (24-105, 15-85, 17 -?), but I really like being able to get out to 135; I know I would miss the extra reach. So I will continue with my 28-135, and for wide shots haul out the 10-22. On crop body (60D) thats the best solution in my case.

Have them both and love them both, but if I could only get one, for me I would get the 15-85 as I seem to need the longer end more than the ultra wide end. Guess it depends on your needs.

The 15-85mm is a great lens, and I use it for almost all my landscape shots. When I want wider coverage, I shoot with the camera in vertical mode and make 3 pan shots overlapping by about 1/3 of a frame each. This provides the equivalent of a 10mm shot. I gather the 10-22mm is great as well, but I'll never buy it for just 5mm of coverage beyond the 15-85.