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

watt100 wrote in post #10487857
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

That's not half the price, though!

I appreciate all of the responses. I'm definitely closer to deciding what to go with...

Lore wrote in post #10485833
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'm just one of those lazy people who hates primes, despite their amazing performance. I do a lot of walking around outdoors, and I simply hate carrying extra gear and swapping lens... I've had a 50mm f/1.8 for nearly a year and have maybe 5 actuation's on it

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #10485894
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

I've actually thought about the 24-105mm PRIMARILY for the weather-sealing, but I cannot justify the price as I'd then need to make room for a wide-zoom lens to boot. I don't plan on going FF, especially with stellar APS-C bodies like the 7d out there. For your typical bird-man (that's me), crop bodies are things of great beauty

Additionally, the MTF charts for the 17-70mm show that it's nearly as sharp as it gets WITHOUT stopping down. Minimal improvement going 1-2 stops down:
http://www.photozone.d​e …st-report--review?start=1

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. 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..

I'm seriously considering the 17-70mm at this point as a pairing to my 18-55mm IS. It's VERY affordable ($200 used).

paradiddleluke wrote in post #10487697
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'

exif is
1/4
f/5.6
iso 400
40mm

the IS made this shot possible along with the USM being accurate even in low light, as I said, it locked on immediately with center point

That's a great shot. Was that in any way post-processed, or unedited?

watt100 wrote in post #10487857
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

That's extremely expensive. I may as well go Canon 17-50mm IS at that price Thanks for the suggestion though.

Naw it is pretty much how it was shot, I tried to boost a touch of fill but decided it didn't really need it. There were external flashes used obviously however!

paradiddleluke wrote in post #10490831
Naw it is pretty much how it was shot, I tried to boost a touch of fill but decided it didn't really need it. There were external flashes used obviously however!

Heh, that was to be my next question.

In any case, after lengthy deliberation, I decided to just reorder the 15-85mm. All cashback incentives included, it came to $550 shipped--if I change my mind I'm sure I can sell it off for significantly more in 4 days once the current rebates expire.

I just bought a 15-85mm to replace my kit 18-55mm on my T2i for my trip to Europe next week. I paid $650 with overnight shipping. I figure if I don't use it or decide it's not worth it I can just sell it for close to $600, and still have made out cheaper than I would have had I rented it for the time i'm there. I just don't want to swap lenses. My only hangup is the slower speed. I do like taking night pictures but I'm bringing my el cheapo Nifty Fifty for that.

The 15-85mm lens has much better IQ than the kit lens.

MOkoFOko wrote in post #10491446
Heh, that was to be my next question.

In any case, after lengthy deliberation, I decided to just reorder the 15-85mm. All cashback incentives included, it came to $550 shipped--if I change my mind I'm sure I can sell it off for significantly more in 4 days once the current rebates expire.

MO,

If you don't mind, can you tell me where you got the lens from for that price? I'm interested in it, but I'm only seeing $620.00 for it.

Thanks.

IME, no comparison.
but, I came to appreciate it only after using it only after using two kit lens: 18-55 IS and 28-135 IS.
both were pale in comparison (literally) against 15-85.

I had thought that it was overpriced as well, and bought it just to try it out and thinking I'd resell otherwise and get a 17-55. Didn't happen, completely satisfied to a point where it stopped my FF craving as well.
In a sense, a $650 lens (bought it with BCB before the canon rebate), just saved me $2700 (from going to FF)

I started with the kit lens, moved to the non-OS Sigma 17-70, and a year or so later moved to the 15-85is. I had a good copy of the kit lens, but the Sigma 17-70 (non-OS) was definitely better. The macro capability was impressive. It was really good before a calibration, and great afterwards. I was not unhappy with the Sigma, but for me though, I needed something slightly wider in a single lens, and the 15-85 fit the bill. The slower aperature of the 15-85 vs the Sigma did not bother me, and I found the color/contrast better in the 15-85 vs the Sigma. Of course 30 seconds of PP work with the Sigma achieves the same thing, but for me, I prefer the look/feel of the 15-85. I miss the zoom lock of the Sigma, but the USM and IS of the 15-85 more than makes up for it, and it's also sharp as can be wide open across the range.

moko, great deal! that is a steal you will easily be able to sell it for a bit more even on here if you decide its not for you. I love this lens, Hope it works out for you too! The only time I will consider letting it go will be in a few years when/if I go FF

Parafly9 wrote in post #10491888
I just bought a 15-85mm to replace my kit 18-55mm on my T2i for my trip to Europe next week. I paid $650 with overnight shipping. I figure if I don't use it or decide it's not worth it I can just sell it for close to $600, and still have made out cheaper than I would have had I rented it for the time i'm there. I just don't want to swap lenses. My only hangup is the slower speed. I do like taking night pictures but I'm bringing my el cheapo Nifty Fifty for that.

Kind of wish I'd paid for faster shipping--I did some underground cavern shooting today and all I had handy was my 18-55 IS Of course, my 15-85mm shows up today >.>

Cebu wrote in post #10492934
MO,

If you don't mind, can you tell me where you got the lens from for that price? I'm interested in it, but I'm only seeing $620.00 for it.

Thanks.

Ebay, adorama and beachcamera both have it for $620 shipped, plus 8% bing cashback, plus ebay bucks, plus another stackable cashback... actually puts it at just under $540. Promotion ends tomorrow though...

MO,

Thanks for the info.

man what a steal, so how do you like it so far?!

If you have the money, go for the 17-55 I couldn't afford that so I went with the Tamron 17-50.

danny819 wrote in post #10507608
If you have the money, go for the 17-55 I couldn't afford that so I went with the Tamron 17-50.

Too expensive. No way I'd seriously consider paying $1000+ for an EF-S lens in a PLASTIC BODY!!! Even the $600 cheapo 70-200mm f/4 non-IS has a magnesium body for gosh sakes.

paradiddleluke wrote in post #10507596
man what a steal, so how do you like it so far?!

I like it, but I already checked it out thoroughly when I had my first copy--I'm very impressed with the build, but the IS doesn't seem as noticeable as the 3rd gen on my 70-200mm, with significant shake. Attached a 100% crop that I took just now. This is at significant range (75ft or so), and it appears to be front-focusing a bit... but it still looks good considering the mediocre lighting.

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