Official: EF-S 15-85 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Thanks!...Is there a better way to post pictures with a larger size that still preserve some quality?

Maybe this is a little better,just trying to figure things out.........

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

For anyone interested I wrote a (beginner) review with some samples shots and comparisons here https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1056146

Still love mine..though it hasnt been out of my bag for a bit until today

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​879129670/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​878567383/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​878567423/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …unetsukiphoto/5​878567489/

I've had my new T3i for less than a week and already I have a strong gut feel that the 15-85mm will be my first upgrade from the kit lens. (I also have the 55-250mm.)

Went on a walkabout yesterday in a nice neighborhood with just the 18-55mm kit lens mounted, and found myself occasionally wanting a bit more zoom or a bit more wide open. From reading this thread it appears the 15-85mm performs well for macro-like shots, which is a nice option while doing a walkabout.

Anyone have any suggestions as to why I would not want the 15-85mm? The other lens that intrigues me is the 10-22mm, which would be cool for city architecture and certain landscapes, but I'm not sure is a good choice for "next" lens.

Comments and suggestions welcome,

shinksma

shinksma wrote in post #12779478
Went on a walkabout yesterday in a nice neighborhood with just the 18-55mm kit lens mounted, and found myself occasionally wanting a bit more zoom or a bit more wide open. From reading this thread it appears the 15-85mm performs well for macro-like shots, which is a nice option while doing a walkabout.

Anyone have any suggestions as to why I would not want the 15-85mm?

For me, the 15mm wide and the 85mm is just about perfect as a walkaround lens. It's definitely the best overall from all other options, for me, and replacing lenses for walkaround being the worst option of all. In spite of its relatively small and veriable aperture. I almost never feel the 15mm is not wide enough. When the 85mm is not long enough, it is usually significant in that I'd want something like a 70-200 (keeping in mind that I probably wouldn't bother replacing the lens for a walkaround shot, most of the times, depending on situation). So something a bit longer around 100mm would be mostly useless. The IS works great and is very important for me.

Why you wouldn't want the 15-85 lens? There are several reasons.
- You might need/want a consistent aperture lens for whatever reason.
- Maybe the f/3.5-5.6 (especially f/5.6 at 85mm) isn't big enough for you.
- Maybe 15mm isn't wide enough, or you want a lens that is better for wide angle.
- If 85mm isn't nearly long enough it can frustrate you.
- Most copies seem to have zoom creep. It's worse with the hood (which I use). It's the most annoying part of the lens for me.
- You want macro, which this lens isn't so good for (only approx x0.2 magnification). It's worse than the KIT 18-55 for macro (which is not that great either). It depends whether you really need macro or just want to take closeups e.g. a not-too-small flower.
- A worrying amount of users report issues like decentering (I imagine no lens is perfect so it's a matter of how much).
- It's a bit expensive.

This all depends on what you prefer and want from a lens.

clarnibass wrote in post #12783773
- You want macro, which this lens isn't so good for (only approx x0.2 magnification). It's worse than the KIT 18-55 for macro (which is not that great either). It depends whether you really need macro or just want to take closeups e.g. a not-too-small flower.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with the above statement.

This lens is as good, or better, that most zoom lens out there. I would not fault it for that reason.

The 15-85 has a max magnification of .21 (about 1/5 lifesize). It is the same as my 70-200 2.8 IS II, and about equal to most zooms. This is also much better than most primes.

The 18-55 IS "kit lens" has max magnification of .34 (about 1/3 lifesize) and is about as good as you can get unless you go to a true "Macro" lens. Hardly what I would call "not great".

clarnibass and msowsun: I appreciate the feedback. I guess the somewhat remarkable performance of the kit lens for macro has spoilt us a little, and I shouldn't discount the 15-85 performance just because it isn't quite as good.

I don't need constant aperture (or at least I don't know what I'm missing ) and I am not sure whether the 5.6 at 85mm will be a true limitation: I do like to play with a limited depth of field to get nice background, and a larger aperture sure helps keep the exposures short, but since there is no other alternative with that range of zoom at those lengths, I'm pretty sure that this is the best choice for me, since that is what I consider the most relevant factors for me (good zoom range starting a bit wider than kit lens 18mm).

I did underline "for me" on purpose. Others will and have come to alternate conclusions, and I fully understand that. I am sure there will be times when I am in a church or similar and the 15mm, though wide enough, isn't fast enough.

Of course, in recent surfing I realized the Sigma 8-16mm would be "fun" and is tempting me to be the next purchase. Sigh...I don't think I can justify both any time soon, so maybe I'll wait a little and see if Canon has a refurb sale again this fall/winter. And if the Sigma drops in price for some reason, I'll consider that.

shinksma

I am very puzzled at comments like: "would you buy a 85mm f/5.6 prime?" or "f/5.6 is so limiting". I think these comments must date back to 20 years ago when we were forced to shoot film at ISO 100 or ISO 400.

If you need to shoot low light, todays cameras have High ISO capability AND Image Stabilization. Yes, a fast lens can stop action, or movement, but a 2.8 zoom is not going to be a miracle worker there either. Indoors I like to use bounce flash and get great results every time.

If you want to isolate your subject, NO walk-around zoom is going to be good for that. Even a 17-55mm 2.8 is not going to help you there. You need a fast prime like a 85mm f/1.8 or better yet, dig out your 70-200 2.8 if you have one.

In my opinion, for a crop camera, there really is no better general purpose, walk-around lens, than the 15-85.

msowsun wrote in post #12784581
Sorry, but I have to disagree with the above statement.

This lens is as good, or better, that most zoom lens out there. I would not fault it for that reason.

Yes, I understand. That's why I didn't say it was bad, just not great. It depends what you need/want from macro. I consider x0.21 (and x0.34) not great macro. If that is great for someone who doesn't need anything more than that then that's... well... great... but they simply don't need great macro. It can be excellent for some closeups. Things like flowers etc. can get pretty big in the frame, some probably taking the entire frame. But I just don't consider that macro. I'm not saying someone should rule out this lens because of this.

So I agree with everything you said as far as being the same or better than most zoom lenses or better than most prime lenses. That's all true. I don't consider it a good lens for macro just because it is better than many otehr lenses which are also not good for macro. Or maybe it depends on what you consider macro.

shinksma wrote in post #12784771
clarnibass and msowsun: I appreciate the feedback...

I did underline "for me" on purpose...

I also agree with msowsun. In spite of all the "issues" I mentioned, every other lens I considered (and I considered the Canon 17-55 and all similar range lenses from Sigma and Tamron) had more or worse "issues" for me

I would consider the 15-85 one of the best general purpose lenses on a crop...
I would not consider the 15-85 a good macro...
A constant aperture would be nice, but not required...

Here is a macro comparison of the the 15-85 lens vs. a true macro 1:1 ratio lens. Both are 50% crops. The 15-85 is at its largest magnification (manual focus for macro and moving the screw to focus. The macro lens at very close to its 1:1. This screw is approx (just under) 2mm dia x 3 mm length. This is just to show the difference. You might not need macro at all, just relatively closeup photos which the 15-85 can be pretty good for.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Here is one I took today,this lens isn't great for bokeh,managed to get a little of that effect.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

here are my macro with 15-85 and 500d close up.

^- NICE shots man