15-85 or 10-22

I'm posting this in the hope of sparking an interesting discussion from which I, and others, can learn. I am not asking for advice, just looking for all different points of view.

My current set of lenses for my 50D are a Canon 28-135, the 18-55 IS (kit lens), and a Tamron 70-300 VCII. I will be buying one new lens soon and had long expected it to be the 15-85. But lately I hear this distant call from an 10-22, "me, me, buy me".

Well, the 15-85 is the most practical choice. It completely replaces the kit lens and very nearly retires the 28-135 as well. It would be my lens for at least 90% of my work. It has a better IS than my 28-135, better build and very good IQ.

But the 10-22 increases my range by much more. So I'm trying to decide if I live with the 28-135 longer and get the 10-22 instead. I know the 28-135 is not particularly well regarded here but mine has served me well and rarely disappoints. I wish it were built better. The wobble in zoom tube has always bothered me but I'm told that's normal for this lens. It has no zoom creep and all works well.

If anyone here has used both the 28-135 and the 15-85 ON A CROPPER, did you notice a significant difference in IQ? I'm thinking that the 28-135 on a cropper hits the lenses sweet spot and eliminates many of it optical weaknesses.

I do a variety of work from landscapes to class reunions. I'm interested in anyone's thoughts about this

Personally, on a crop, I think the 10-22 should be in everyone's bag. It is just that useful and excellent. I have a 28-75 F 2.8 Tamron to cover the next bit of range, and after that, I turn to long primes.

rgs wrote in post #16727715
I'm posting this in the hope of sparking an interesting discussion from which I, and others, can learn. I am not asking for advice, just looking for all different points of view.

My current set of lenses for my 50D are a Canon 28-135, the 18-55 IS (kit lens), and a Tamron 70-300 VCII. I will be buying one new lens soon and had long expected it to be the 15-85. But lately I hear this distant call from an 10-22, "me, me, buy me".

Well, the 15-85 is the most practical choice. It completely replaces the kit lens and very nearly retires the 28-135 as well. It would be my lens for at least 90% of my work. It has a better IS than my 28-135, better build and very good IQ.

But the 10-22 increases my range by much more. So I'm trying to decide if I live with the 28-135 longer and get the 10-22 instead. I know the 28-135 is not particularly well regarded here but mine has served me well and rarely disappoints. I wish it were built better. The wobble in zoom tube has always bothered me but I'm told that's normal for this lens. It has no zoom creep and all works well.

If anyone here has used both the 28-135 and the 15-85 ON A CROPPER, did you notice a significant difference in IQ? I'm thinking that the 28-135 on a cropper hits the lenses sweet spot and eliminates many of it optical weaknesses.

I do a variety of work from landscapes to class reunions. I'm interested in anyone's thoughts about this

The Canon 10-22 is a terrific lens and I won't speak against it. But consider a few facts to help you. The Canon 15-85 duplicates almost two thirds of the range of the 10-22. Unless you feel you will be using the range between 10-14mm a lot, (and some people do) that lens may not give you any great advantage over the 15-85. At 15mm on the wide end, the Canon 15-85 goes wider than any other standard zoom made. For many of us that's wide enough that we feel no need for a UWA lens like th 10-22. The Canon 10-22 is also no faster than the 15-85 and lacks IS. The Canon 15-85 has close to four excellent stops of IS. Optically, the 15-85 is generally sharp across the image and gets sharper at the lens is stopped down. It has excellent build quality, but many examples display zoom creep between around 24-50mm when pointed straight up or straight down. There is less zoom creep when the lens is angled, and none at all in when the lens is less than a 60 degree angle. It also exhibits some barrel distortion at 15mm and tends to be slightly softer at the edges than in the center at 85mm, even when stopped down a bit. If you are not suffering any zoom creep from your 28-125, that's almost a miracle since that lens is renown for it creeping. The 28-135 on a FF body actually covers a very similar effective range as the 15-85 does on crop.

This was a shot taken with my 15-85 at 15mm and you can see the distortion to the buildings left and right. Can you imagine what that shot would have been with a 10-22 at it's widest. I think 15mm is plenty wide enough for a crop camera, and no, I couldn't have moved further back, I was already sat on the front of a car.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/killwilly/93695​25308/

I have used the 28-135 on crop and FF. It is a better lens on FF, but then again, most lenses are. On crop, the 15-85 is more useful, and to my eye, a bit sharper. My 28-135 had the wobble and pretty bad zoom creep. Neither interfered with the images it produced. I sold the 28-135 to get a 15-85 for my 60D, and a 28-75 f/2.8 for my 6D.

I have the 10-22 also. As mentioned, it is almost essential if you are shooting a crop camera.

I've owned a 10-22 and sold it.

First impressions were wow I can fit loads in.
That feature will grab you straight away.

Then I noticed the distortion (don't use it with people in the shot), and I started to dislike it.

After a while I found, looking back at the exif data, that I was shooting mainly in the 15-20 range with most shots around 17-18.
This, for me, makes is not much different to a standard kit lens.
Hence I sold it.

What about getting the 15-85. Selling the kit and 28-135 lenses and saving to get the Sigma 8-16 - that too extends your range.

I wonder how much difference one would see between 10mm and 8mm in real life shooting.

Sibil wrote in post #16728332
I wonder how much difference one would see between 10mm and 8mm in real life shooting.

Quite a bit, plus/but I was trying to maximize his range. This puts him 8-300! He wanted alternate views, so I gave one.

I've not used a 28-135, however do have both the 15-85 and 10-22. OP, if 18mm is often feeling to long for some situations, and if the 28-135 is already doing everything you want it to do in that range, and your objective is to not just "get everything into a shot you can", then adding the 10-22 may be a logical next step. Most folks may find 15 plenty wide enough, however there is a big difference between 10 and 15. For me, the 10-22 is my least used lens, but an essential tool in my kit for the times I need it.

In the image below, I brought the 10-22 along to an airshow of all things. It allowed me to work my way to the front of a big crowd, and get the shot I wanted at 10mm (handheld) without 500 others in my scene.

IMAGE LINK: http://ct1co2.smugmug.​com …tain-Air-Show/i-G5QWg2f/A

Sibil wrote in post #16728332
I wonder how much difference one would see between 10mm and 8mm in real life shooting.

25%

Sibil wrote in post #16728332
I wonder how much difference one would see between 10mm and 8mm in real life shooting.

Same relative difference as between 500mm and 400mm - 20%. Not huge, but if you need it....

Sibil wrote in post #16728332
I wonder how much difference one would see between 10mm and 8mm in real life shooting.

Maybe the comparison image in this link will help.

jimewall wrote in post #16728593
Maybe the comparison image in this link will help.

Good link. Thanks. To my eyes, the difference between 8 and 10 is not that significant.

Sibil wrote in post #16728638
Good link. Thanks. To my eyes, the difference between 8 and 10 is not that significant.

It is and it is not, depending on the scene.

I’m not a typical UWA shooter so I tend to agree with you.

(But) Think of all those with FF that have the 16-35mm that still want a 14mm. (The 8 to 10 difference is a farther equivalent FOV difference than the 14 and 16). It seems significant enough for many of them (though for some it is the edges).


My suggestion was also because IF the OP went 15-85 and 10-22, that is a lot of money in FL overlap. The 15-85 and Sigma 8-16 is much (much) less overlap.

The OP just wanted various POV, so I gave an alternate view - from the addition of the 10-22. Not necessarily one that I would choose.


OP - I forgot to mention that I have not used 15-85, but I have a good copy of the 28-135. Yet from what I’ve seen the 15-85 is as good as, or better than, the 28-135 (if you are staying with a crop camera).