15- 85 IS versus 17-40L comparison

Well I finally buckled down and ordered a 15-85 IS. It's a nice lens, but has some flaws. There's a gigantic review here:

15-85 versus 17-40

Thoughts?

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh. That review has so many crops!

17-40 ftw IMO

I think that you just proven what you wanted to prove, as before. This is clear from your conclusion "17-40 is still more pleasing to my eyes".

I have a few remarks regarding your test:

1. "15-85 tends to have a slight dark tint to everything",

it is not true, 15-85mm have some underexposition, it is already reported elsewhere (e.g., here). But, this is not a bad thing.

2. "Although this separation and accurate portrayal of color may not seem like much in these crops, it creates a more pleasing image when viewing the entire picture."

It is not possible to judge this on a blurry 15-85mm picture crop. Also, it is wierd that 17-40L is sharper @35mm WO, becase the digital picture test show a completely different thing. Some other samples, show 15-85mm is sharper, such as, @40mm WO, and @35mm WO in the center. This is also clear from an example Gary gave us @20mm.

3. "There is a pleasant lightness to the overall image which goes back to the lack of a dark cast which is common in EF-S zooms. "

I cannot see this from your test on ONE picture. This is a serious test to you? You're tempting me to get 17-40L and make this test seriously.

4. "Note how the garage door looks like to be a completely different shade in the photos! ?!?!"

For my eyes, there is NO difference between these doors. From the test it is not clear how did you focused and where? Why didn't you attach full jpegs or raw?

I talked with some of my pro photographers friends, and they say that if 17-40mm is better, it should be clear ONLY if you shot a lot of pics in harsh and different conditions.

My conclusion, you are obviously L biased.

No arguments here. I like my 15-85 and it works well as a general lens on the 7D,
but a 17-40 L is going to give better IQ across the range.

Nice article, though it would be better if the panels to be compared were side-by-side...
my scrolling finger is way tired.

There are some weird things here. @17mm, f5.6, in these examples: 15-85mm and 17-40L.

17-40L is a lot sharper in center. However, in bonus crops: 15-85mm is sharper or AT LEAST the same, also in center, @17mm and f5.6, than 17-40L.

mj_photo wrote in post #10435096
I think that you just proven what you wanted to prove, as before.

I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion with so many crops and evidence.

Scroll down to the vignetting section. There's a huge difference between both lenses at 17mm wide open.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I wish that were the case. I want a more veratile lens and gave the 15-85 IS a real chance - so much so that I ordered one.

Well, you already proven, before this test that you are L biased, so, you are not the right person for the test. I hope that someone else will do the test, or I will do it (if I get both lenses).

Mike55 wrote in post #10435483
I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion with so many crops and evidence.

All of your crops are based on one image. For example, Garys examples shown different thing.

Mike55 wrote in post #10435483

| Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Very obvious.

I meant on the bigger door pics. I don't see here how 17-40 is better.

Mike55 wrote in post #10435483
I wish that were the case. I want a more veratile lens and gave the 15-85 IS a real chance - so much so that I ordered one.

Do you HAVE it, or you just borrow it for a short test?

mj_photo wrote in post #10435532
Well, you already proven, before this test that you are L biased, so, you are not the right person for the test. I hope that someone else will do the test, or I will do it (if I get both lenses).

If I was L biased, why would I buy a 15-85 new and even bother comparing it to a 17-40L?

You mean they are based on one scene.

And actually there are two scenes.

You mean this one?

I own it. It's sitting right next to me along with the 17-40L.

Mike55 wrote in post #10435693
If I was L biased, why would I buy a 15-85 new and even bother comparing it to a 17-40L?

It seams to me that you want to justify your selection and favor.

Mike55 wrote in post #10435693
I own it. It's sitting right next to me along with the 17-40L.

O.K. Could you make one more shot, somewhere else (landscape): @17mm, @24mm, @35, @40mm (f4 and f5.6), and to attach full JPEG-s or RAW somewhere and share with us here at the forum? One of my friends will do the same and I will compare, whether results differ or not.

So mj, no comment on the door crops you thought were the same? Also, the problem with taking landscape shots is wind rustling vegetation. It's not good for a compariosn. You need a structure.

Door from 15-85mm looks slightly larger and darker, but it cannot be said that is 17-40L better in any way from this pic. O.K. Shot some structure.

MJ- When you look at the two images of the house with the red pickup in the driveway, you can see the overall "more pleasing" look the 17-40L gives. It's a lightness and certain cleanliness to the image. This is why landscapers like myself have a hard time getting rid of the 17-40 for something more versatile. Trust me, I'd love to have a more versatile landscape lens with IQ and build as nice as the 17-40, but so far I haven't found it.

I cannot trust you, because this test is tendentious and not clear. Such statements, such as "more pleasing" look and "certain cleanliness to the image" cannot be justified and seen from these images. IT COULD be if you have shot 2000-3000 pics with both lenses.

Mj- I just showed you the crops to prove my point. Look at the full images of the bricked house. If you describe the 15-85 image as "more pleasing", then something is off. The 17-40 image looks much nicer at the same exact settings. You can most certainly apply "more pleasant" and "cleaner" to 17-40 image there.

definitely interesting, not trying to be annoying and defend my purchase but my corners and crops definitely dont look that soft