Which would be the "better" walkaround lens?

I'm considering the Canon 18-200mm and the 15-85mm to serve as my walk around lens. I've been very frustrated lately when taking day trips to the city, vineyards, fairs/festivals because I feel like I never had the right focal length/range for the job.

My 28mm serves as my low-light lens for indoor candids and for when I want to travel as light as possible and not "look" like a photographer. The 17-55 gets most use during the day trips and at family parties and weddings. The 70-200 is reserved for sports and outdoor candids. And the 100mm is obviously being used for macro, and then outdoor candids when I don't want to lug around the 70-200. I can't decide which lens is the better compromise for day trips where photography isn't the primary purpose of the trip...the smaller focal range with better IQ or the longer focal range with mediocre IQ/sharpness.

Please discuss!

15-85mm is a very high image quality lens with similar quality to the 17-55mm and a longer focal length at the cost of slower aperture. It's the ideal daylight walk around lens. I'd go with IQ over more range, if you really need above 85mm you'll have the 70-200mm. Probably won't unless you're shooting sports.

If I wanted to go lighter, I'd get a 55-250 IS. I would use it with your 17-55.

Otherwise from your post I'd go with the 15-85, as I've never found a super-zoom's IQ that I likes (though I've not seen the 18-200).

But if you really don't want to look like a photographer, just get a 6 to 10X point and shoot.

Definitely the 15-85!!

+ 1 on 15-85,superb image quality,bought one a week ago,never regret it...

24-105mm

The 15-85mm is equivalent to the 24-105mm on a crop and has similar image quality. Though lacks weather and dust sealing. 24-105mm on a crop will leave you occasionally reaching for an ultra wide angle.

The 15-85 is a great all around lens, but I'm not convinced that you'll see enough difference from the 17-55 to justify another walk around lens - the difference between 55 and 85 mm is significant, sure, but not overwhelming. I guess I don't see these as complementary lenses - I would have one or the other, and you already have the 17-55.

Given your current lens range, I think that you would be disappointed by the 18-200 (I don't have this lens, so take that statement as a summary of lots of reviews and others' statements ) - would you always have that nagging feeling that the IQ would have been better with one of your other lenses?

24-105

mannetti21 wrote in post #14864010
I'm considering the Canon 18-200mm and the 15-85mm to serve as my walk around lens. I've been very frustrated lately when taking day trips to the city, vineyards, fairs/festivals because I feel like I never had the right focal length/range for the job.

I assume that you're using the 17-55 on these trips. If so, is it a longer focal length of which you find yourself in need? Do you only want to bring one lens with you? I'm thinking that if you can get away with bringing two lenses, the 55-250 is a great lens. It is also very small in size and weight compared to the 70-200f/2.8. I usually bring my 60D with the 10-22 and either the 60 or 55-250, depending on where I'm going.

I have frequently ran into the same walls- regarding focal length of what most consider normal range for a crop- that 50/55mm wall. At work, out of 3 others that shoot Canons, those with the 18-55's both have stated that the one thing that they hate about the 18-55 the most - was that 55mm wall. I'm not alone. The way I see it, the best options is to ADD to your collection- keeping your 17-55 for low light, indoors when you want high IQ and accuracy, and to add something that helps fill the bill in with a longer range for daylight walk about. Options that I considered; 15-85. 18-135. 18-200. 18-135 IS STM. The 18-135's and 18-200 get a bad rap from "purists" that are obsessed with ultimate IQ- and because of the stigma of being "kit" lenses. But the truth in the matter is that unless you take shots with all of them of the same thing- including a 15-85- which is highly regarded, and compare them- well, you would not know which shots were taken with which lens. I think that most owners of the 18-135's and the 18-200's are actually happy with their choices-often pleasantly surprised by their output. They are fine lenses that do their jobs- not necessarily the best specs- but fine none the less. Now, I put both the 18-135 IS (original - still available) and the 18-135 IS STM (new one that comes as part of the t4i kit ) because they are truly two different lenses. Canon did a fine job with the STM version- re-engineered. I think it's got better IQ overall- build quality is slightly better, and definitely much quieter than the original. The 15-85 does not boast as long of a range- and was in the "consideration" till I got the 18-135 STM. Honestly, I don't think that I would gain that much going to a 15-85 now- just lose that wonderful range.

I also went full frame ( well I still have crops )- and I think that one of the reasons I didn't feel like I lost too much range- generally speaking- was because I used the 18-135 primarily for walkabout with the 7D- and when swapped out with the 5D3/24-105/70-200 - I guess I didn't miss the "crop factor"'s worth because the 18-135 is really about the same range as the 5D3 with two lenses - although considerably lighter..

There you go.. I hope this helps. I do have to admit that Frugivore's suggestion of adding a lightweight 55-250 intrigues me- as a lightweight walk about addition.. But in no way would that replace my 18-135 STM as my primary walkabout lens for the crops. It's just way too convenient. Less lens swapping.. More chance that the lens on the camera will be the right one for this shot and the next. BTW: If you think you need 18-200 more so than 18-135- then- go with your gut- try the 18-200..

dodgyexposure wrote in post #14864689
The 15-85 is a great all around lens, but I'm not convinced that you'll see enough difference from the 17-55 to justify another walk around lens - the difference between 55 and 85 mm is significant, sure, but not overwhelming. I guess I don't see these as complementary lenses - I would have one or the other, and you already have the 17-55.

I agree. The 15-85mm always intrigued me when I shot crop only, but I already had the 17-55, so never could justify adding that lens. If you decide on the 15-85, I would consider selling the 17-55 and using your prime lenses when you need something faster. That is how I set up my lens kit when I went full frame -- f/4 zooms for greater focal range and lighter weight, supplemented with fast prime lenses.

One lens you have not mentioned, which would be a compromise between the 15-85mm and 18-200mm, is the EFS 18-135mm.

Scott M wrote in post #14865344
I agree. The 15-85mm always intrigued me when I shot crop only, but I already had the 17-55, so never could justify adding that lens. If you decide on the 15-85, I would consider selling the 17-55 and using your prime lenses when you need something faster. That is how I set up my lens kit when I went full frame -- f/4 zooms for greater focal range and lighter weight, supplemented with fast prime lenses.

One lens you have not mentioned, which would be a compromise between the 15-85mm and 18-200mm, is the EFS 18-135mm.

I have the 18-135, but I am considering changing it for the sigma 17-50 f2.8 to get the constant faster aperture and higher quality. But I'll loose on the long end. I'm still pleased with the convenience of the 18-135, it's not heavy and gets descent pictures, but I find myself using it mainly at the wide end, using my 70-200 if I want to get closer...

I use the 18-135 for general walk-around stuff. It travels well and gets me most of what I want. I only carry the big guns (Σ70-200 OS, 100-400L) when I know I am going to need them. If I am carrying a second lens, it is usually the 10-22.

I have the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens and absolutely LOVE it EXCEPT for that darn 55mm wall which is frustrating at times. However, this lens provides excellent IQ, great AF and extremely good IS.

The 27.2 to 88mm equivalent is fairly decent and was the approximate range of many of the manual focus mid-range zooms of yester-year. Sure, I would like a longer focal length, so I often carry a 70-200mm f/4L IS lens which I selected in lieu of the 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) because of the lighter weight and more compact size. The f/4L IS lens AND A SECOND 1.6x CAMERA weighs about the same as the f/2.8L (series) lens alone.

Yes, I have often thought about a single lens which will give me the range that I want but, I am very fussy about IQ and I am often hand-holding my f/4L IS lens at 200mm where the extra stop (f/4 vs. f/5.6 at 200mm) can be quite important.

I just bite the bullet and carry the two cameras and two lenses. That way I have the 17-55mm and 70-200mm range at my finger tips. I don't miss the 55-70mm gap between these two great lenses. The combination might be bit heavier than I would wish for but, still very much within reason.

An added bonus is that I divide my shooting between the two cameras; usually about 2/3 of my imagery from the 17-55mm and the remaining 1/3 from the 70-200mm lens. That means that I almost never run out of juice in my batteries, a single CF card for each camera (16gb) will most often suffice for a day's shooting and, most importantly, the second camera provides insurance against missing photo opportunities due to camera failure.

I fell on a slippery slope during a ten-day trip to Alaska's Kenai Peninsula and broke my 40D camera. My 30D which I had with me saved the photo opportunities for that vacation. Conversely, a fellow tour member fell on the cobble stone street in front of the Xi'an, China City Walls and broke his Nikon DSLR. Having no backup camera, he missed out on photos (including those of the Terra Cotta Warrior Museum) of that trip until he arrived at Hong Kong where he could buy a replacement camera.

BTW: the Optech Dual Harness makes carrying a pair of cameras easier because it distributes the weight across my shoulders rather than hanging from my neck