10-22 or 15-85, pls advise

1. I cannot decide what to buy between Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for microstock purpose while Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 have the same range from 15 to 22. (The highest of 10-22 and the lowest of 15-85)
2. I would like to ask about the image quality (sharpness, color, etc) of photos taken on the same settings between 15 and 22.
3. I am learning about the lenses to get started to microstock photography, please advise. Thank you in advance.
NOTE: I am using T2i + kit lens + 50 f/1.8.
Langin

1. You gotta get both! But I often shoot wide. There is a huge difference between 10mm and 15mm. It's handy to have a walk around that goes this wide though, reduced how much lens swapping you do.

2. The 15-85mm is sharper, but is much more distorted at 15mm and has some vignetting. The 10-22mm has very minimal distortion at 15mm. If you're mainly shooting at around 15mm, go with the 10-22mm.

3. What the hell is micro stock?

Also I just bought a 6D so now need nee lenses, if you would like to buy my 10-22mm 15-85mm that can be arranged!

When I only had a crop body those two lenses were my most used. For travelling I could have just taken those two and been happy, all my other gear was really just dead weight to carry around. When I brought the 15-85 I thought it would make my 10-22 redundant, but it didn't. I did not use it as much, but it was still my second most used lens. If I had to choose only one of them it would have been a hard choice. The one thing I probably would have done if I had the time over again was married a 10-22 with a 17-55 for the constant f/2.8 aperture.

L.J.G. wrote in post #15738101
If I had to choose only one of them it would have been a hard choice. The one thing I probably would have done if I had the time over again was married a 10-22 with a 17-55 for the constant f/2.8 aperture.

I considered that, and the Sigma 17-50mm which is comparable and in some ways better than the 17-55mm, warmer colours and sharper. But I found I made too much use of 85mm.

10-22 is more specialized for ultra wide shots. The 15-85 is general purpose, I would buy the one that you would get more use from.

Based on what you currently own the 10-22 will give you the wide end that you are missing. I bought both and neither replaces the other, mostly depends on what type of shots you take most frequently.

Thank you everybody. All your comments are very useful. I should have studied more about lenses before making decision to buy new lense(s) I preferred.

Langin wrote in post #15737841
1. I cannot decide what to buy between Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for microstock purpose while Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 have the same range from 15 to 22. (The highest of 10-22 and the lowest of 15-85)
2. I would like to ask about the image quality (sharpness, color, etc) of photos taken on the same settings between 15 and 22.
3. I am learning about the lenses to get started to microstock photography, please advise. Thank you in advance.
NOTE: I am using T2i + kit lens + 50 f/1.8.
Langin

I own both, and rarely use the 10-22. The 15-85 is my most used lens.
Of the two lenses..in the 15-22 range, the 15-85 is sharper... colors and contrast are very similar. You also have IS in the 15-22 range..with the 15-85, which i find very useful(contrary to what many will say on here).

edit: Filters are cheaper for the 15-85, and the hood is useful, whereas the 10-22's isn't. But......the 10-22 is so damn wide.. it can be a lot of fun.

I agree with a lot of things above. Get both. Although I use the 10-22 less after getting the excellent 15-85. Hood on the 10-22 is pointless. And, I prefer the 15-85 to the 17-55. For what I do, the 15-85 is better. It has more reach, and the f/2.8 is pointless (for me, fans - for me) as I don't tend to shoot wider apertures with wide lenses. I would like something faster than the 15-85 for low-light situations, but I can't justify the 17-55 and can't afford the 24-70 II. I'll get by with primes.

TSchrief wrote in post #15739551
I agree with a lot of things above. Get both. Although I use the 10-22 less after getting the excellent 15-85. Hood on the 10-22 is pointless. And, I prefer the 15-85 to the 17-55. For what I do, the 15-85 is better. It has more reach, and the f/2.8 is pointless (for me, fans - for me) as I don't tend to shoot wider apertures with wide lenses. I would like something faster than the 15-85 for low-light situations, but I can't justify the 17-55 and can't afford the 24-70 II. I'll get by with primes.

+1, my thoughts exactly and thanks for saving me the time

For me the 10-22 is situationally useful. I sometimes think about selling it, then I have situations crop up where it's the only lens that'll work (tight spaces). It's a fun lens, but I think you have to really want that ultra-wide end to justify it. 15mm is plenty wide in most situations, while the 10-14 range can be compositionally quite challenging (that's the fun part).

I had the 15-85 for a long time as my primary lens and enjoyed it. I bought it instead of the kit lens when I got my T1i. I gradually came to want better DOF control and replaced it with the 17-55, with, but as this thread has shown, not everyone cares about that. I don't think you can go wrong with the 15-85.

Langin wrote in post #15737841
1. I cannot decide what to buy between Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 for microstock purpose while Canon 10-22 f/3.5-4.5 and Canon 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 have the same range from 15 to 22. (The highest of 10-22 and the lowest of 15-85)
2. I would like to ask about the image quality (sharpness, color, etc) of photos taken on the same settings between 15 and 22.
3. I am learning about the lenses to get started to microstock photography, please advise. Thank you in advance.
NOTE: I am using T2i + kit lens + 50 f/1.8.
Langin

Most people would find the 15-85 far more useful. The 10-22 fits a niche if you do a lot of ultra-wide angle landscapes or city/architectural photography, but the 15-85 is a more flexible lens for daily use. My sister loves hers.

Preeb wrote in post #15740851
Most people would find the 15-85 far more useful. The 10-22 fits a niche if you do a lot of ultra-wide angle landscapes or city/architectural photography, but the 15-85 is a more flexible lens for daily use. My sister loves hers.

Which is what I do. Hence I consider the 10-22mm as important or more important than the 15-85mm.

Mornnb wrote in post #15740895
Which is what I do. Hence I consider the 10-22mm as important or more important than the 15-85mm.

But I was replying to the OP, not to you. His comment about microstock photography could mean just about anything. I too have the 10-22, and when I need it, I need it. But my 17-55 is my workhorse, and it's only rarely that I need to go wider than 17mm. For most of us, 15mm is wide enough. If the 10-22 offered a speed advantage then there might be more reason to recommend it to him.

Preeb wrote in post #15741183
But I was replying to the OP, not to you. His comment about microstock photography could mean just about anything.

I know, I merely meant to back up your use case example.

How often do you need it at 2.8? The 15-85mm is probably a better general purpose lens because of its ability to go to 85mm, and that 15mm is much wider than 17mm.