Canon 15-85 VS 17-55 2.8 IS

IQ, low light....etc

Whats the better buy?


For the prices, I could just go with L glass n get the 24-105??

If you like shooting wide, it's a no brainer.

IQ - I don't think one clearly beats the other.

Low light - 17-55.

If you're just looking for a walkaround, the 15-85 is pretty versatile.

It would be a tough decision for me as well, but I'd have to go with the f/2.8 lens.

The 15-85 has the edge in price and range. The 17-55 will be better in low light due to it's constant f2.8. Image quality might go to the 17-55, but not enough to worry about. Nothing wrong with the 24-105. The rap against it on a cropper is that 24mm might not be wide enough for a walkabout.

More worried about F/4...

Hard to pay $1000 for the 17-55 that's not an L

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13145062
More worried about F/4...

Hard to pay $1000 for the 17-55 that's not an L

Fixed 2.8 is worth it. The optics are every bit an L.

At the second you write low light the 15-85 looses ground fast
The 15-85 is a super nice and versatile walk around lens
Its only problem is that is a variable slow lens
For outside shots with good light condition and or flash it is super sharp, light and compact, but not a low light lens by any means
the 17-55 constant f2.8 with IS and nice sharpness trumps it there at the expense of being more expensive, heavier, larger and with less reach focal lenght
You Might Consider looking at the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS as an alternative to the 17-55IS

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13145062
Hard to pay $1000 for the 17-55 that's not an L

Then pay $650 for the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS. In many (dare I say "most") ways, it's the better lens.

Many people choose to get the 15-85 and a fast prime like the Sigma 30 f1.4, or EF 28 1.8 Ef 35 f2

What about 17-55 vs the 24-70......

less expensive?
Image stabilization
Lighter
Smaller

Same aperture....

IQ?

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13145306
What about 17-55 vs the 24-70......

less expensive?
Image stabilization
Lighter
Smaller

Same aperture....

IQ?

less expensive? the 17-55 by a bit
IS? - 17-55; then again, the 24-70 is a FF lens and on a FF camera like the 5D and the 1D, the better high ISO performance allows you to use a higher ISO and use faster shutter speeds combined with the wide fixed aperture.
lighter? 17-55 by a bit again. there is a reason the 24-70 is called a brick
smaller? they are roughly about the same size, the 24-70 is a bit longer

but again, for a walkaround lens on your crop body, you are better with the 15-85 or 17-55 if you really want the fast aperture.

Ya, I've had the brick, & know about the weight...

But this is for Disney, & if we are there at night, (between the 17-55/15-85)
2.8 is calling my name...

I wanted the 24-105, just not sure how F/4 will work at night to capture all the lights & colors.

you have answered your question then. 2.8 is your deciding factor and it cant be heavy like the brick.

unless you want to go the inexpensive route and get the Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS. either way, its up to you now.

The slowness of the 15-85 took it out of the running for me. f/5.6 @ 70mm+? No thanks.

Ok, so I don't mind going for the 17-55 due to the IS (over the 24-70)
I'd be waiting for the mk2 anyways...

But I'm torn on the range of the 24-105.... Will the F/4 really kill me?


Lol..... I know, I know, I know...

SouthFlorida_Tron wrote in post #13145512
Ok, so I don't mind going for the 17-55 due to the IS (over the 24-70)

I'd be waiting for the mk2 anyways...

But I'm torn on the range of the 24-105.... Will the F/4 really kill me?

Lol..... I know, I know, I know...

F4 is one stop faster than F5.6; if you are really concerned about range, get the 15-85. I find 24mm on a FF lens too narrow for walkaround, especially on a crop.

the 24-105 is a 4X zoom compared to the 5.6X zoom of the 15-85 (17-55 is 3X). IQ on the 15-85 is very good, you can always push the ISO one stop to make up for the 5.6 vs 4 on the tele end against the 24-105. both have IS but the 15-85 is advertised to have "up to" 4 stops of image stabilization. the 24-105 has better sealing and comes with a lens hood (if that matters to you).