Best L lens for a crop sensor camera?

Archibald wrote in post #18658306
I have the 10-22mm for wide!

Yep, that a terrific lens. My point about the 15-85 is that it gets into ultrawide territory without having to carry or change lenses, which can be very convenient if I'm going to be outside and travelling light, The 15-85 is an easy choice for me.

Here are a couple of images I captured with that lens at 15mm. The same images taken at 18mm would have had a much more restrictive angle of view. Certainly an even wider lens could have been put to good use, but I'm comparing this to what could be accomplished when compared to a lens with an 18mm wide end.

Photo from mwsilver's gallery.

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KgBF​xv

mwsilver wrote in post #18658314
Yep, that a terrific lens. My point about the 15-85 is that it gets into ultrawide territory without having to carry or change lenses, which can be very convenient if I'm going to be outside and travelling light, The 15-85 is an easy choice for me.

Here are a couple of images I captured with that lens at 15mm. The same images taken at 18mm would have had a much more restrictive angle of view. Certainly an even wider lens could have been put to good use, but I'm comparing this to what could be accomplished when compared to a lens with an 18mm wide end.

Gallery photo:
posted by mwsilver originally in forum: Canon Lenses

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/KgBF​xv IMG_5978_1_DxO by mwsilver, on Flickr

The zoom range is wonderful, I agree. And your shots are great. I had one and found it soft in the corners, especially at the wide end. Got rid of it. I don't see any problems in your shots, though.

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.

I don't understand why Canon doesn't upgrade a lens like the 15-85 to the "new technology"... is the 18-135 Nano USM suppose to be that upgrade?

I have the 18-135 STM but hear the Nano version is just that much sharper.

Still I'll take the 15-85 out for awhile and see if maybe with a little more experience that I've gained in the last 6 years it might be my answer. Actually since getting the 18-135 STM with my 80D the 15-85 has been sitting on the shelf. I'm not exactly sure why.

ed rader wrote in post #18658282
get the 11-24L

Pipe down.

i-G12 wrote in post #18658457
I don't understand why Canon doesn't upgrade a lens like the 15-85 to the "new technology"... is the 18-135 Nano USM suppose to be that upgrade?

I have the 18-135 STM but hear the Nano version is just that much sharper.

Still I'll take the 15-85 out for awhile and see if maybe with a little more experience that I've gained in the last 6 years it might be my answer. Actually since getting the 18-135 STM with my 80D the 15-85 has been sitting on the shelf. I'm not exactly sure why.

I believe the 18-135 STM and 18-135 nUSM have the exact same glass in them. The difference is the AF mechanism. In PD (viewfinder) AF it is as fast/accurate as USM. In CD (live view/video) it is as quiet as STM. The 15-85 is already ring (real) USM, so not much to be gained by making it nUSM.

I think the coatings on the 18-135 nUSM may be different. I like my nUSM at 135mm much more than I liked my STM at 135mm.

Archibald wrote in post #18658331
The zoom range is wonderful, I agree. And your shots are great. I had one and found it soft in the corners, especially at the wide end. Got rid of it. I don't see any problems in your shots, though.

Thanks, micro contrast and sharpening had been added in DXO Photolab, but you can't really successfully sharpen what isn't there in the first place. I also changed the vertical perspective in the second image to compensate for extreme barrel distortion at 15mm when you are right on top of objects like the archway. There were also deep shadows on the archway from which I pulled detail. My examples weren't intended to show straight out of camera results, but merely the angle of view at 15mm. Other than the zoom creep, I've always been very happy with my copy. It is a little less sharp in the corners at 85mm.

i-G12 wrote in post #18658457
I don't understand why Canon doesn't upgrade a lens like the 15-85 to the "new technology"... is the 18-135 Nano USM suppose to be that upgrade?

I have the 18-135 STM but hear the Nano version is just that much sharper.

Still I'll take the 15-85 out for awhile and see if maybe with a little more experience that I've gained in the last 6 years it might be my answer. Actually since getting the 18-135 STM with my 80D the 15-85 has been sitting on the shelf. I'm not exactly sure why.

Most of the new technology STM lenses and nano USM lenses are lighter and some of them seem less robust with more of a plastic feel like the 10-18 STM. The zoom rings are not damped or always active, and harder to use for manual focusing. The 15-85 is a true USM motor, not nano USM which is fly by wire only and has to have power manually applied with the shutter button before you can use the focus ring. It is much easier to manually focus a true USM lens then an nUSM lens. It is unlikely an updated version of the 15-85 would be significantly better optically. New technology does not necessarily always make things better, and often it just makes things cheaper. The only downside to the 15-85 is it's use when taking video. Unlike the STM lenses and the newer nano USM lenses it was not originally designed for that purpose with regard to quietness of the motor and smoothness of video autofocus transitions. For still photography however there is no disadvantage.

^ Exactly why when I bought my 80D I decided to get the 18-135 STM because of the reported quiet motor (which is true) since *I thought* I'd shoot lots of video which turns out not to be true!

Anyway I'll see how I do with my 15-85 and will likely be pleasantly surprised. In fact I wasn't unhappy with it in the first place but got this notion in my head I needed something sharper when in reality I needed more operator training!

i-G12 wrote in post #18658560
^ Exactly why when I bought my 80D I decided to get the 18-135 STM because of the reported quiet motor (which is true) since *I thought* I'd shoot lots of video which turns out not to be true!

Anyway I'll see how I do with my 15-85 and will likely be pleasantly surprised. In fact I wasn't unhappy with it in the first place but got this notion in my head I needed something sharper when in reality I needed more operator training!

The EFs 15-85 may not be your cup of tea. While most folks who own one seem to love it, not everyone does. And remember the images I posted were processed in DXO PhotoLab. My purpose attaching them was to show the field of view at 15mm which is much wider than 18mm, and are not meant to portray how images will look straight out of the camera.

I recommend the Sigma DC 18-35mm. For wide angle, I would recommend the Canon EF-S 10-18mm

But if you need a L (red ring), the best would be the 11-24mm f/4L

i-G12 wrote in post #18658457
I don't understand why Canon doesn't upgrade a lens like the 15-85 to the "new technology"... is the 18-135 Nano USM suppose to be that upgrade?

I have the 18-135 STM but hear the Nano version is just that much sharper.

Still I'll take the 15-85 out for awhile and see if maybe with a little more experience that I've gained in the last 6 years it might be my answer. Actually since getting the 18-135 STM with my 80D the 15-85 has been sitting on the shelf. I'm not exactly sure why.

I think the lens your need will be decided by exactly what you want it to do. I bought the 15-85 in 2013. I wanted a lens that was a bit wider than the typical kit lens as well as being a bit longer (thinking 18-55 here). I like being able to change lens, I just don't want to have to do it 20 times a day. It was the only lens I found that met both conditions. I've looked at the 10-22, 10-18 and the 8-15L but imo they are too restrictive FL wise and are relegated to the 'special use' category for me.

Enjoy your 15-85

Rod

Yep, the 15mm on APS-C is like 24mm on FF body; 18mm on APS-C is like 28mm on FF. Many of us find the 28mm too restrictive for the kinds of photography we do, although 28mm keeps is safe from induced perspective distortion when photographing groups of people at events (e.g. weddings) from too close.

So your discovery about 15mm vs. 18mm is no surprise!
FWIW, 24mm on FF or 15mm on APS-C is into 'super wide' classification according to classic 135 format film photography
...20mm is entering the 'ultrawide' field of view.

RodS57 wrote in post #18658901
I think the lens your need will be decided by exactly what you want it to do. I bought the 15-85 in 2013. I wanted a lens that was a bit wider than the typical kit lens as well as being a bit longer (thinking 18-55 here). I like being able to change lens, I just don't want to have to do it 20 times a day. It was the only lens I found that met both conditions. I've looked at the 10-22, 10-18 and the 8-15L but imo they are too restrictive FL wise and are relegated to the 'special use' category for me.

Enjoy your 15-85

Rod

That's exactly why the 15-85 is my general walk around lens on my 7D Mark II.

RodS57 wrote in post #18658901
I think the lens your need will be decided by exactly what you want it to do. I bought the 15-85 in 2013. I wanted a lens that was a bit wider than the typical kit lens as well as being a bit longer (thinking 18-55 here). I like being able to change lens, I just don't want to have to do it 20 times a day. It was the only lens I found that met both conditions. I've looked at the 10-22, 10-18 and the 8-15L but imo they are too restrictive FL wise and are relegated to the 'special use' category for me.

This was/is the same scenario for me as well. I’ve never felt compelled to replace the 15-85 with any of the 18-xxx variants as it’s given fantastic results on 3 different crop bodies. I have the 10-22 for specific purposes, but it’s shot at 10mm probably 95% of the time it’s put to work. Tried the 10-18 thinking it could replace the 10-22 at a lower cost investment, but was not impressed. The Sigma 18-35 can be a potential good solution for wide’ish and fast if you get a good copy. Been through 2 copies 6 months apart. I wanted to like it, it produced beautiful images when it hit focus, but the degree and frequency of inconsistency (especially with the 2nd copy) was not tolerable.

All this talk about the 15-85 is making me want to dust off mine and put it back into some service.