15-85mm or a real ultrawide?

8

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

About the IS, is it possible that sometimes, randomly, it make matter worst than no IS at all? For exemple, yesterday I was shooting a house at 15mm, 1/500s. I was very stable for the first shot but noticed that the picture was not sharp in the LCD. A slight motion blur. I took 2 other pics and they were perfect.

At 1/500s, 15mm... the shutter speed was too fast to permit any blur from my body motion. It must be the IS that didn't do the job for sure.

I did notice the same phenomenon 1 hour later. It's very minor but it happen. Better take few shots when you think you have a good photo.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14879846
About the IS, is it possible that sometimes, randomly, it make matter worst than no IS at all? For exemple, yesterday I was shooting a house at 15mm, 1/500s. I was very stable for the first shot but noticed that the picture was not sharp in the LCD. A slight motion blur. I took 2 other pics and they were perfect.

Is it possible that the shot was mis-focussed? Are there any parts of the picture (at different depths) in focus?

P.S. I love the coloured tongues photo.

No, it was clearly motion blur as the blur was very directional. Focus was fine (f11, a house in front of me).

Yes I like it too! It really piss me off that it's not very sharp. 1/400 but at 250mm. I was also very rush to take the photo. 1sec later the scene was finish. I'll put my shutter over 1/500 next time I use this lens.

IS will not handle sharp movement - maybe that happened for that particular shot. I used the 15-85 for over a year and thought it's IS generally performed well. Maybe use it for a while longer before coming to any conclusions about your lens' performance.

And that shot is acceptably sharp for a candid, displayed on the web. While we try to be perfectionists, I think an interesting shot does not have to be razor sharp. The subject and the moment are more important than very fine detail.

That would explain the phenomenon. I might have jerk my hands or something. In any case, the lens perform very well. Excellent sharpness all over the frame and very very versatile.

What was the saying? Sharpness is a Bourgeois concept? Might be. But still I prefer my photos sharp except if the motion blur bring something to the image! However I agree with you. The coloured tongues photo is good enough for a candid gallery on the web.

How's your sigma 30mm treating you? Do you use it often enough? I am thinking next I will get the Canon 200mm f2.8 as I cannot see myself with an heavy 70-200...

Earwax69 wrote in post #14884617
How's your sigma 30mm treating you? Do you use it often enough? I am thinking next I will get the Canon 200mm f2.8 as I cannot see myself with an heavy 70-200...

I like the 30mm a lot. I use it around the house to take photos of my family - no flash required and lovely shallow DOF. I alternate between it and the 85mm for street photography. I use the 17-55mm more for events, when the flexibility of a zoom may be needed. I had a 70-200mm f/4 IS for a couple of years (with excellent results), until I upgraded to the f/2.8 because I wanted the indoor option/felt the need buy a new lens. It is a lot heavier, although it does not take up a lot more space in my camera bag, but you gradually get used to heavier lenses. Better straps (like the BlackRapid range) and balancing them with a heavier camera body help a lot, but now my wife complains my camera is too heavy for her to hold. She just has to settle for the S100 I bought her for Christmas!

P.S. What are the potatoes for in your signature?

A lot of crappier older lenses.

The 70-200mm f4L is just a bit more expensive than the 200mm f2.8. I should take it but I want to try night city photography like this guy here: http://www.flickr.com …h/sets/72157610​215209937/

Shallow DoF really make a difference...

Certainly primes for street - you should borrow a 135 2.0L. Quick to focus and another stop of low light and shallower DOF. Might be a more useful focal length (on a crop body) than 200.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14869170
Sorry to revive the thread. I am still struggling with my decision.

So far, what I have gathered is that the 15-85mm lens is a brutally honest lens. Nothing to hide. It's good for black and white street photos and landscape but quite bad for portrait and low light.

I got few choices still;

- Canon 15-85mm and live with it, --700$

- Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 + Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 --760$

- Canon 10-22mm. And switch to my 55-250 when I want less wide. --632$

Sigma 10-20 + Nifty Fifty = $579. Save up for 24-105L later. Shooting with the 10-20 and 50 1.8 II will help in avoiding "tourist" shots. Or you can swap in the 35 F2 or 40 2.8 since the 55mm end of the 55-250 is quite good.

Thanks Mike55. I already bought the 15-85mm and I'm really glad I did.

I just went on a tourist trip with the step parents for 2 days at some remote resort. I can see that when I got that "tourist shot look" it's because I rush to take a photo without looking at my specs. Also I miss experience and should really kick my ass to shoot manual and stop to check my shutter speed and aperture each time I fire. Now I dont. I just get exited and shoot at everything! Of course, shooting RAW help because I can fix all exposure errors in post.

I'll get an UWA in the future for sure! Until then, the 15mm end will have to do.

@davomate: Hey, sorry, missed your post yesterday. The 135L is very tempting but as I already have a 85mm, I though I should go the farthest from it. Also the 200mm is 220$ cheaper than the 135mm. But you might well be right. The 135L should be easier to use in low light, handheld.

My brother got his 7D with this lens. We then went on a trip to NZ and this was his only lens(the trip was focused on more relaxing)

It brought back amazing memories.

Nice IQ, nice range, good landscape, good portrait, good zoom.

General all in one!

Earwax69 wrote in post #14840134
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.

Both the Canon EF-S 10-22 and the Canon EF-S 17-55 have USM. Excellent lenses with quick AF! http://www.usa.canon.c​om …f_s_10_22mm_f_3​_5_4_5_usm
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …p/ef_s_17_55_f_​2_8_is_usm

I notice since few days how much the 15-85mm is good for Street Photography in the day. 15mm is great for shooting from the hip and you can, in a flash, get it to 85mm when you see an interesting person that is a bit far.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14940250
I notice since few days how much the 15-85mm is good for Street Photography in the day. 15mm is great for shooting from the hip and you can, in a flash, get it to 85mm when you see an interesting person that is a bit far.

Yep, it's the ideal focal length range for capturing a whole street and quickly moving to objects of interest. It was made for street photography! The image quality is great. It's fully sharp at max aperture too so you don't need to stop down.

Earwax69 wrote in post #14869170
So far, what I have gathered is that the 15-85mm lens is a brutally honest lens. Nothing to hide. It's good for black and white street photos and landscape but quite bad for portrait and low light.

It's not a portrait lens but it's still very capable with portraits. Your number 12 photo is a good example. The bokeh it produces at the higher focal lengths is very attractive, though you need some room to make use of it.
And it's good at night with the image stabilisation, shooting at 1/20 is no problem and even 1/10 is possible if you are careful and steady, it isn't a replacement for a fast aperture but if you need night shots it'll give good results.