15-85mm or a real ultrawide?

Hi! I was looking for a prime in the wide end but though that maybe the 15-85mm would fit the bill better. I want to get a wider lens to try a bit of street photography.

Here what I use mainly:

Canon 24mm 2.8 - too soft
Canon 50mm 1.8
Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 18-55mm IS II
Canon 55-250mm IS
Tamron 90mm Macro.

The lenses I use the most outdoor are the 55-250mm and the Tamron macro.

The main selling point of the 15-85mm for me is the 15mm. It's wider than anything I got. Then there's USM and IS.

I'll go in the city this week-end to see what I use most. The 18-55mm or my 55-250mm.

The 15-85 is a solid, versatile and well performing lens. Your only other option is the 10-22 really if you want wider, and that lens is fantastic as well. Just depends if you want the 10mm focal length or IS and versatility.

Pretty pronounced difference between 10 and 15 on the wide end on a crop.

For landscapes, unless in certain circumstances, 10 is often TOO wide and people make the mistake of getting EVERYTHING in the frame without any main focal point or detail.

But for a creative lens that adds great perspective and flexibility, the 10-20/10-22 is great. Especially for a walk around in a city and architecture stuff.

you mention street shots, 15-85 is a good choice for this. it's hard to beat for a general purpose wandering around lens with great IQ.

I love my 15-85 but I'm considering the 10-22 for an 'artistic' lens. For street work the 15-85 will allow you to get closer without bothering people.

What range do you think you use most on the 15-85? I am now thinking that 700$ might be a bit too much for my modest needs...

Why restrict if you want to go wide?
Two great options are Canon EF-S 10-22 and Sigma 8-16.. both are awesome as per photozone.de

10-22 gives better overall performance w.r.t distortion on 10mm compared to 15mm of 15-85.

If money is not an issue, I would go for 10-22

"Why restrict if you want to go wide?" Well, 10-22mm is quite restrictive compare to 15-85mm. You do get 5mm more though...

I think I'll get the 15-85 for now and later add a UWA that fit like the 11-16 or 8-16.

How the 15-85mm behave in low light? Is it hunting a lot? I dont care so much about blurry pics but I hate when the lens cannot find the focus.

The 10-22mm is vital for street photography, it's the killer architecture lens and absolutely essential if you want to take photos of big things like skyscrapers and palaces, bridges, landmarks and other such things.
Great for landscape too, it's range covers most of what you will want landscape shots, though you will probably tend to use closer to 22mm most of the time than 10mm. But the flexibility to go to 10mm when you need it for a landscape shot is important.
15-85mm is probably the most useful lens for a street photographer, it'll do almost everything great except for architecture where you'll need to have ready the 10-22m. The 15-85mm is ideal for capturing the streetscape, the 10-22mm will distort the street too much and make any cars or people near the corner of the frame look very odd. 15-85 will also do compression shots through busy groups of pedestrians and traffic. And let you capture small objects of interest and people.
I do a lot of street photography, and I find the 10-22mm and 15-85mm together as pair do everything I need, with high image quality too.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14839745
How the 15-85mm behave in low light? Is it hunting a lot? I dont care so much about blurry pics but I hate when the lens cannot find the focus.

It focuses good in low light and it has a good image stabiliser, but it's still a pretty slow lens and you're gonna need a high ISO. At 50mm for example it's limited to f/5. Consider the 17-55mm if you want low light, f/2.8. Similarly high quality optics though you lose out big on range, telescopic up to 85mm is important for street photography if you want to for example zoom in on an interesting individual.

Getting the extra wide after you are happy with a general normal range seems like a good plan.

The 15-85 is kind of the crop version of the full frame 28-135. At the wide end it is like a 24, which is reasonably wider than the 28 equivalent of most normal range zooms. Plus it seems to get glowing reviews, so it is most likely sharper than the FF 28-135. It seems like a great range and quality for a one lens general walk around solution on a crop camera.

jimewall wrote in post #14839851
Getting the extra wide after you are happy with a general normal range seems like a good plan.

The 15-85 is kind of the crop version of the full frame 28-135. At the wide end it is like a 24, which is reasonably wider than the 28 equivalent of most normal range zooms. Plus it seems to get glowing reviews, so it is most likely sharper than the FF 28-135. It seems like a great range and quality for a one lens general walk around solution on a crop camera.

http://forums.dpreview​.com …age=40986719&ch​angemode=1

According to these guys, as questionable a source as it may be... the 15-85mm is even sharper than the L series 24-105mm, though only between 24mm and 35mm. Excellent optics, though the build quality surely isn't L series grade.

Wrong question. The question should be: what range do YOU think you would use most? Different people shoot different things.

You have the key already. Given what YOU shoot, how often do you bump up against the lower limit of your 18-55 and want to go wider? And how much wider do you want to go? 15mm is appreciably wider on a crop, but not hugely. You say that you mostly shoot outdoors at 55mm and longer, which does not suggest wider is a high priority.

If you do decide you want the range, and you don't mind the weight and variable aperture, the 15-85 is a great lens. It is my standard outdoor lens when I don't need something longer. But unlike many people, I don't often want to shoot wider. YMMV.

There is a dramatic difference from 10 to 15mm. While 15mm is pretty wide, its no where near what 10mm gives you. I suggest stopping by a camera store and try the 15-85 and then throw on a 10-22. UWA is a totally different style of photography compared to a 15-85.

In the end, I sold my 15-85 for a Sigma 17-50 and Sigma 10-20 for better low light performance and true ultra wide. The 15-85's variable aperture was not what I was hoping for, a constant 2.8 kicks ass!

UWA is a lot of fun but it is my least used lens. So I went with a Sigma 10-20 for the price and performance. I figure why spend nearly double the cost for the Canon for a lens that is not really used too often. Check out the reviews comparing the Canon 10-22 and Sigma 10-20.

Here in Japan, the Sigma 10-20mm is almost the same price as the Canon. 562$ vs 631$. The less expensive UWA are the Tokina 12-24mm and the Tamron 10-24mm.

I though about getting the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8+ a UWA but I am always dragged back by the 15mm of the 15-85mm. Also I value USM. I'm tired of slow focussing lenses. My 85mm 1.8 have USM and it make all the difference in the world.

paddler4 wrote in post #14839950
Wrong question. The question should be: what range do YOU think you would use most? Different people shoot different things.

You have the key already. Given what YOU shoot, how often do you bump up against the lower limit of your 18-55 and want to go wider? And how much wider do you want to go? 15mm is appreciably wider on a crop, but not hugely. You say that you mostly shoot outdoors at 55mm and longer, which does not suggest wider is a high priority.

If you do decide you want the range, and you don't mind the weight and variable aperture, the 15-85 is a great lens. It is my standard outdoor lens when I don't need something longer. But unlike many people, I don't often want to shoot wider. YMMV.

^THIS^