Best L lens for a crop sensor camera?

I'm looking for better glass for my 80D but I'm put off with the EF lenses because of the lack of wide angle on the crop sensor.

But there doesn't seem to be much available for a great walk around lens.

I'm currently using the 18-135 EF-S or the 15-85 EF-S but always looking for something sharper.

WTH? Are there no alternatives?

There are many alternatives or good crop lenses. What are you looking for specifically (focal range, usage. budget)?

i-G12 wrote in post #18657934
I'm looking for better glass for my 80D but I'm put off with the EF lenses because of the lack of wide angle on the crop sensor.

But there doesn't seem to be much available for a great walk around lens.

I'm currently using the 18-135 EF-S or the 15-85 EF-S but always looking for something sharper.

WTH? Are there no alternatives?

First, what do you mean by wide angle? There are two excellent wide angle Canon EFs lenses, the 10-18 and the 10-22. The 15-85 is a very sharp lens and it's image quality is on a par with the original 24-105 L and is a great general purpose lens on a crop camera. The EFs 17-55 is an L quality optic. EF lenses, including L lenses, are not about sharper, although some are. My non L, EF 35mm f/2 IS USM is sharper than the original 35mm f/ 1.4 L.

Can you show us the issues you're having and why you think that your EFs lenses are lacking. For general walk around the 24-105 L was designed for a full frame sensor. The 15-85 gives you the same angle of view at the wide end on a crop camera. A full frame lens with IS, better glass, build and a focal range of 18-135 would be large, heavy and expensive. A fast version would be much bigger, much heavier and much much more expensive. Canon makes a slow EF 28–300mm f/3.5–5.6L IS USM, but it's $2500 and weighs well over 3 pounds and is still not terribly wide on a crop camera.

I use the 18-135 STM and 24-105 STM. Neither are L. Neither have sharpness issues.

There is little correlation between "L" and sharpness. My 50mm STM is sharper at f/4 than my former 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 50mm and f/4. I can get 12 used 50s for the price of a new zoom.

There is little correlation between sharpness and a good photograph. Sharp can make a good photo look even better. A bad photo is a bad photo, independent of its inherent sharpness.

I'm thinking the 15-85 might need a more thorough workout by me.

I've had it for a long time -- like 6 years but started using the 18-135 more often. I originally got the 18-135 STM because of the silence while shooting video but found I rarely shoot video on my 80D. So...

My use for this lens is mainly vacation walk around and landscapes. In reviewing my last vacation photos and charting the focal lengths I used I find almost all of the photos are within the 15-85 focal length. Not too may at the 85+ to 135 but there were a few. I could probably due without that focal length on vacations.

I also have the 100-400 II (just got back from Africa and was blown away) which is why I'm getting spoiled. But on the other hand now that I have a little more experience maybe i haven't given the 15-85 a good enough test. I don't think 10-18 would have enough versatility for me say on a vacation but I could be wrong.

Apparently I have an incorrect mindset regarding "L" lenses and "sharpness". Maybe that isn't too unusual for a non pro.

Bassat wrote in post #18658007
I use the 18-135 STM and 24-105 STM. Neither are L. Neither have sharpness issues.

There is little correlation between "L" and sharpness. My 50mm STM is sharper at f/4 than my former 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 50mm and f/4. I can get 12 used 50s for the price of a new zoom.

There is little correlation between sharpness and a good photograph. Sharp can make a good photo look even better. A bad photo is a bad photo, independent of its inherent sharpness.

I understand the point you were intending on making, but I doubt your 50 mm STM at f/4 was sharper than your 70-200 f/4 IS USM at 50mm and f/4, unless you have a magical version of that zoom lens.

i-G12 wrote in post #18657934
I'm looking for better glass for my 80D but I'm put off with the EF lenses because of the lack of wide angle on the crop sensor.

But there doesn't seem to be much available for a great walk around lens.

I'm currently using the 18-135 EF-S or the 15-85 EF-S but always looking for something sharper.

WTH? Are there no alternatives?

Canon EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS

Sigma 18-35 F1.8 ART

Very best,

get the 11-24L

i-G12 wrote in post #18657934
I'm currently using the 18-135 EF-S or the 15-85 EF-S but always looking for something sharper.

Which version of the 18-135 do you have? And which of these two lenses do you find the sharper?

i-G12 wrote in post #18658029
I'm thinking the 15-85 might need a more thorough workout by me.
...
I also have the 100-400 II (just got back from Africa and was blown away) which is why I'm getting spoiled. But on the other hand now that I have a little more experience maybe i haven't given the 15-85 a good enough test...

It isn't hard to be spoiled by the 100-400 II; it is one of the best lenses Canon makes.
You might be on to something with your experience comment above. The 15-85 CAN be a fantastic lens; obviously there might be some bad copies out there but this lens is well-known for it's image quality, especially at the wider end.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is also a great walk-around lens. Many people have resisted selling their crop sensors just so they can keep using this lens.

i-G12 wrote in post #18658029
...Apparently I have an incorrect mindset regarding "L" lenses and "sharpness"...

Most, but not all, L lenses are sharp.
But then again, with proper technique pretty much any lens can be sharp. An 18-55 kit lens @ 30mm and f/8 on a tripod then reduce chromatic aberrations in post and you will get a critically sharp frame. Bonus points for off camera flash, this helps too. Great technique goes a long way to making even cheap lenses look great.

EDIT:
CLICK HERE to see the 15-84 @ 24mm and wide open @ f/4 vs the famed 200 f/2 L @ 2.0 mounted to the same camera. Sure the 200 is a smidge better but at $5000 more it better be. The IQ of the 15-85 can be phenomenal.

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18658291
It isn't hard to be spoiled by the 100-400 II; it is one of the best lenses Canon makes.
You might be on to something with your experience comment above. The 15-85 CAN be a fantastic lens; obviously there might be some bad copies out there but this lens is well-known for it's image quality, especially at the wider end.

The 17-55 f/2.8 is also a great walk-around lens. Many people have resisted selling their crop sensors just so they can keep using this lens.

The 15-85mm and 17-55mm are both old technology. The 15-85 goes back to 2009 and the 17-55 to 2006. In their day, they were revolutions. Reviewers sung their praise.

Lenses have come a long way since then. Today's 18-55mm and 18-135mm kit lenses are just as sharp.

True, the 17-55 is old but I still believe it is the best all-around crop-specific lens for a Canon.

I’m hoping they decide to update it with nano-USM and 5-stop IS soon I’ll pre-order that one.

Archibald wrote in post #18658298
The 15-85mm and 17-55mm are both old technology. The 15-85 goes back to 2009 and the 17-55 to 2006. In their day, they were revolutions. Reviewers sung their praise.

Lenses have come a long way since then. Today's 18-55mm and 18-135mm kit lenses are just as sharp.

Yes they are just as sharp, but they are not nearly as wide. It may not seem like its a big deal, but those 3 extra mm on the wide end makes a significant difference. That's on the upper edge of ultra wide territory. Just because the 15-85 is 9 years old doesn't make it a bad lens. Since I tend to need a wider angle rather than a lot of reach, the 15-85 is for me the perfect compromise as a general walk around lens on crop. No other Canon zoom lens made gives me the wide angle I want along with short/medium telephoto.

Marm O. Set wrote in post #18658300
True, the 17-55 is old but I still believe it is the best all-around crop-specific lens for a Canon.

I’m hoping they decide to update it with nano-USM and 5-stop IS soon I’ll pre-order that one.

Yeah, I was hoping that 5 years ago! Still waiting...

mwsilver wrote in post #18658303
Yes they are just as sharp, but they are not nearly as wide. It may not seem like its a big deal, but those 3 extra mm on the wide end makes a significant difference. That's on the upper edge of ultra wide territory. Just because the 15-85 is 9 years old doesn't make it a bad lens. Since I tend to need a wider angle rather than a lot of reach the 15-85 , for me it is the perfect compromise as a general walk around lens on crop. No other Canon zoom lens made gives me the wide angle I want along with short/medium telephoto.

I have the 10-22mm for wide!