15-85 or 17-40?

Hello again!

This sparked from one of my other threads, and I wanted to see some other opinions on this matter. I currently own a 17-40 and a 40d. Someone mentioned selling the 17-40 in favor of a 15-85.

Which lens would you want, and why?

Is 40mm long enough for you? If so then I see no reason to get the 15-85. Now if you want a bigger usable focal range in one lens then I would consider the 15-85 or the cheaper sigma 17-70 2.8-4 os lens

15-85mm

Wider by 12%, sharper throughout the entire zoom range, within 1/3 f-stop from 17-40, longer by more than double at the long end, and has good IS.

I had a 17-40 when i had a full frame. I really loved it. When I got a 50D it never seemed right on it. I rented a 15-85mm and fell in love with it. Sold the L and never looked back.....made 2 people happy...the person i sold it to and me with my new 15-85.
I suggest you rent it....you can see it its for you.

I weston I wrote in post #13910550
15-85mm

Wider by 12%, sharper throughout the entire zoom range, within 1/3 f-stop from 17-40, longer by more than double at the long end, and has good IS.

That pretty much sums it up.

No contest really.

I weston I wrote in post #13910550
15-85mm

Wider by 12%, sharper throughout the entire zoom range, within 1/3 f-stop from 17-40, longer by more than double at the long end, and has good IS.

This. The 15-85 is a great lens - I have a 5DII and 7D so I sometimes use the 17-40 as a normal zoom on the 7D since I already have it, but if I ever find myself with just the 7D I would replace the 17-40 with the 15-85 in an instant.

The issue did arise from me wanting a bit more reach, but I came to a solution of a 50mm 1.4 and a 70-200mm, because I love my 17-40. I don't want to lose my f4 in favor of a little more reach either. Which lens produces better images, sharper, color, IQ, etc.

MuteGoose wrote in post #13910648
I don't want to lose my f4 in favor of a little more reach either. Which lens produces better images, sharper, color, IQ, etc.

why stop at f4 when you can get a f2.8 such as sigma 17-50 OS? Better image, sharper, faster, IS and most importantly, f2.8...

kin2son wrote in post #13910683
why stop at f4 when you can get a f2.8 such as sigma 17-50 OS? Better image, sharper, faster, IS and constant f2.8...

I wouldn't gain anything but a faster lens, which I don't need. This stemmed from reach, not speed. I don't shoot anything that I need speed for. Not right now anyway.

If you are happy with what you have, who cares what else is out there or what someone else would use instead? Sounds like you like the 17-40, so what is there to talk about?

MuteGoose wrote in post #13910686
I wouldn't gain anything but a faster lens, which I don't need. This stemmed from reach, not speed. I don't shoot anything that I need speed for. Not right now anyway.

Well you can always stop a lens down but not the opposite. I only suggested it since you said you have 50 1.4 and 70-200 to cover that range already...

I weston I wrote in post #13910550
15-85mm

Wider by 12%, sharper throughout the entire zoom range,

I wish that were true:

http://www.parkcamper.​com …sus-17-40L-comparison.htm


I've owned both lenses. The 15-85 is the more versatile lens, but the 17-40 is the better lens.

I'd look at the Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS and the 24-105 IS over the 15-85.

tkbslc wrote in post #13910702
If you are happy with what you have, who cares what else is out there or what someone else would use instead? Sounds like you like the 17-40, so what is there to talk about?

I know nothing about the 15-75, just wanted to make sure I didn't miss out on it.

There is NO reason to use a 17-40L on a crop camera, there is always a better alternative out there.

Not to mention the 15-85 is known for "lens creep" which is inexcusable for a $700 lens.