15-85mm vs 'kit' 18-55mm IS

It's been rehashed before, but to those who own both lens... If I'll be using a 7d in the very near future, is the jump from the 18-55mm IS to the 15-85mm really recommended?

I bought an 15-85mm as an upgrade and sent it back when I noticed an imperfection in the lens. I didn't run my standard battery of tests, so I didn't do any real crop testing between the two. Now I'm left to decide whether or not to buy it again, or sit pretty with my impressive 18-55mm. Do I really want to buy the 15-85mm again if I'm happy enough with the 18-55mm length? I also never got to try both on a 7d, so there's that as well.

General crop comparisons on the-digital-picture show only minimal sharpness improvement over the 18-55mm. Yes, better contrast, CAs, USM, etc etc, but I primarily use my 70-200mm anyhow. General use outdoors would be minimal.

Recommendations please? Even at $620 (with the $100 rebate), the 15-85mm still seems slightly overpriced--it is still new

The kit lens is good, but no comparison to the 15-85. It outperforms my old kit lens in every measurable way and I had a very sharp copy of the kit lens that I had calibrated by Canon for my 450D. You must've had a bad copy of the 15-85 because IQ doesn't get much better in an EF-S mount and shooting a 7D you're going to need good glass to reap the benefits. I don't think average glass is an option with the sensor in that body.

Don't spend $600 on it if you don't think you will use it. You do have some other nice glass to use.

You might look at something like the Sigma 17-70 if you want something in the middle price-wise. I upgraded from the 18-55 IS to the non-OS 17-70 and the sharpness and color differences are very noticeable. The used 17-70s are dirt cheap now, too. Mine was under $250.

I agree with stone, this lens doesn't stop impressing me, the colors, the contrast, and the sharpness WIDE OPEN all around is just astounding, definitely better than my 18-55 and much more versatile, the AF is also a life saver, if you do low light the AF on the 18-55 is not going to cut it, my 15-85 on my t1i even locks on in way low light. definitely worth it

I appreciate the comments so far. Any additional recommendations regarding alternative lens would be appreciated--the 15-85mm is still an option, but a cheaper 3rd party alternative would definitely be an attractive option...

tkbslc wrote in post #10484320
Don't spend $600 on it if you don't think you will use it. You do have some other nice glass to use.

You might look at something like the Sigma 17-70 if you want something in the middle price-wise. I upgraded from the 18-55 IS to the non-OS 17-70 and the sharpness and color differences are very noticeable. The used 17-70s are dirt cheap now, too. Mine was under $250.

That is an interesting alternative--beach camera has it for $370, plus cashback. There are definite advantages to 3rd party warranties over Canon...

paradiddleluke wrote in post #10484384
I agree with stone, this lens doesn't stop impressing me, the colors, the contrast, and the sharpness WIDE OPEN all around is just astounding, definitely better than my 18-55 and much more versatile, the AF is also a life saver, if you do low light the AF on the 18-55 is not going to cut it, my 15-85 on my t1i even locks on in way low light. definitely worth it

Are you quite certain the low-light performance is that impressive? My experience with 3.5-5.6 variable aperture lenses has only led to poor low-light performance--is it effective across the range or only wide-open at 3.5? I would be beyond surprised if it was anywhere near as effective as a fixed 2.8...
More comments on this in particular please?

I'm not sure if I'd go for the 17-70 sigma. I think that is a small step up form the kit.
I actually have both the 15-85 and the 18-55. I love the 15-85 for the range, USM and IS. I think the IS in the 15-85 is more advance thus you are able to use slower shutter speeds.
To answer your question on low light, it really depends on what you mean by low light. I haven't used it for indoor situations. I go to my sigma 30mm for that. I also have the 17-50mm tammy non-VC, which I don't find adequate for low light even at 2.8.

hubcaps wrote in post #10484527
I'm not sure if I'd go for the 17-70 sigma. I think that is a small step up form the kit.
I actually have both the 15-85 and the 18-55. I love the 15-85 for the range, USM and IS. I think the IS in the 15-85 is more advance thus you are able to use slower shutter speeds.
To answer your question on low light, it really depends on what you mean by low light. I haven't used it for indoor situations. I go to my sigma 30mm for that. I also have the 17-50mm tammy non-VC, which I don't find adequate for low light even at 2.8.

Indoors, just after sunset, etc. I also had the 17-50mm Tamron, and I was unimpressed as well--got rid of that very quick, may have just had a bad copy though.

I've read at least one report that contradicts Canon's assurances of 4 true f-stop IS on the 15-85mm--saying it's actually closer to 2-3 stops. IS helps in low-light, but does nothing really for getting your AF lock... correct?

I own both and for me the 15-85 is a significantly better lens for use as I tend to shoot more in the longer (> 55mm) focal lengths. No comparison in build - the 15-85 is a tank compared to the 18-55. Focus on the 15-85 is fast, quiet, and accurate, colors and contrast are very good, and it is sharp. I haven't had any of the reported quality problems. For my purposes, this lens is a big improvement over the 18-55 and the 17-85, which I also own (and which I felt I had a very good copy of).

Dave

hubcaps wrote in post #10484527
I'm not sure if I'd go for the 17-70 sigma. I think that is a small step up form the kit.

I don't think the 17-70 is any less of a step up than the 15-85. You get improved optics, more zoom range, better close focusing ability and 2/3 a stop aperture increase. I got mine used for about 1/3 the price of the 15-85, too. I've got both 18-55 IS and 17-70 right now and there is a noticeable difference. I am sure the 15-85 is great, but it is pretty expensive especially if you don't shoot a lot in that focal range.

IS helps you hold the camera steady at slow shutter speeds, that is all. It won't keep your subjects still or help you autofocus better. I'd be more concerned about the slow aperture if you plan to shoot in low light.

I'm going to veer OT & say for the money you can grab a few fast primes for the money which for 'me' I prefer.

Grab the Siggy 30mm 1.4 OR 24mm 1.8 macro (if you ever plan to grab a FF) & the Siggy 50mm 1.4

You'll learn to do the zoom'n w/ your feet

I would consider the sigms 17-70 more of a 5.6 constant aperture lens(i had one, it was calibrated), cause thats where its actually sharp.

All of the Canon 15-85's ive used have been sharper then the Sigma 17-70(even at its sharpest aperture) when the Canon is wide open.
The build on the Canon is better then the Sigma 17-70, the focusing is faster/quieter then the Sigma and the IS....well the Sigma doesnt have it..

If your wanting something close to the Canon 15-85, then just get a full frame and a 24-105 F4L

Also i think the best low light lens with the 15-85 is the Sigma 30mm 1.4,

PERSONALLY if the 15-85 was weather sealed, id already have one. But in Oregon from septemberish-mayish it rains....ALOT

Hey, just throwing the Sigma out there as an option as it is a very similar lens for about 1/2 the price. Not trying to start arguments here, but I don't regret buying it one bit.

Here's what slrgear says about the 15-85 in comparison to the non-OS 17-70. I think it is spot on:

The sigma is quite good at max aperture and as good as the Canon stopped down to the max aperture of the Canon based on their lens test charts.

Again, it depends what you need and want to spend..

it depends on how you will need the lens, I have both and the 15-85 definitely blows the kit 18-55 IS out of the water. it has the range I need, the speed is negligible (i primarily use artificial lighting anyway), build is far superior and IQ is very close to the L series.

for the 7D, this would make for a great multi-purpose lens.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10484495
I appreciate the comments so far. Any additional recommendations regarding alternative lens would be appreciated--the 15-85mm is still an option, but a cheaper 3rd party alternative would definitely be an attractive option...


That is an interesting alternative--beach camera has it for $370, plus cashback. There are definite advantages to 3rd party warranties over Canon...

Are you quite certain the low-light performance is that impressive? My experience with 3.5-5.6 variable aperture lenses has only led to poor low-light performance--is it effective across the range or only wide-open at 3.5? I would be beyond surprised if it was anywhere near as effective as a fixed 2.8...
More comments on this in particular please?

pretty sure heres one of those shots I was talking about, there were 2 strobes giving the lighting on the subject, the ambient light was about what is on the way background, maybe a touch more.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

tkbslc wrote in post #10485947
Hey, just throwing the Sigma out there as an option as it is a very similar lens for about 1/2 the price. ..

The Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 HSM DC EX OS is definitely sharper and has better image resolution than the Canon 15-85 at comparable focal ranges

www.photozone.de