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

Beni N. wrote in post #11580955
Would the 15-85 be a good upgrade from the 18-55mm is and 55-250mm is? ?

Yes! That is exactly what I had when I purchased my 15-85mm. I have now packed those two away and just use the 15-85mm or the 28 mm f/1.8 for low lighting and nighttime shooting. I absolutely love the 15-85!

I have the 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 F4 IS combo and it is perfect for my needs , I did look at the 15-85 and it was a very sharp lens but there was something about the pictures the 17-55 took that made me like it just that bit more

Depends on what you shoot, if it's just nature and architecture you probably want more range i.e 15-85mm but if you shoot portraits as well ,then the 17-55 2.8 is really nice to have to get better subject separation. I prefer the faster lens since I love shooting portraits as well as scenery.

I have the Tamron 18-270, one of the ultimate walkabouts, the 15-85 is clearly better, but misses from 86 up, if you are happy pairing that with your longer lens go for it.
I do find with mine that I often need to shoot with minus 1/3 to 2/3 to get correct light in bright conditions, it's VERY light sensitive

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11578965
....Now you have the 2.8 part right....everything else is wrong. Pretty big fail there. Have you ever even used the 15-85?!?!

The 15-85 is just as sharp as the 17-55(at the same apertures, My 17-55 i has to stop down to 3.2 to get actual sharp shots(side note, yes it was sent to canon and it was within spec)). I have used both and both are pretty much the same sharpness. The 15-85 is sharp wide open and doesnt really sharpen up stoping down. Only a DOF gain. Its plenty sharp.
Its also has a better IS vs the 17-55. 4 stop vs 3 stop.

I also preferred the build of the 15-85 over the 17-55.

Both lenses were a pleasure to use. It all depends on your needs.

Personally I perferred the 15-85 and a sigma 30mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 as a kit(with my 70-200 F4 IS) vs the 17-55(with 70-200 F4 IS L). 2.8 isnt really fast enough for much....2.8 will take you into the ISO6400 territory way to fast.

The 17-40L looses all of its magic on crop. I hated it! I hate when people recommend it for crop!!!! The 17-55 and 15-85 are better vs the 17-40 on crop. Both have better range and IS!!!!

agree with you here, 15-85 is a very sharp lens and well built. balance out nicely with the 7D and sometimes you do need 15mm and 85mm. 17-55 is a great lens but for the money and IQ, I still go for the 15-85mm.

Combatmedic870 wrote in post #11578965
Personally I perferred the 15-85 and a sigma 30mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 as a kit(with my 70-200 F4 IS) vs the 17-55(with 70-200 F4 IS L). 2.8 isnt really fast enough for much....2.8 will take you into the ISO6400 territory way to fast.

The 17-40L looses all of its magic on crop. I hated it! I hate when people recommend it for crop!!!! The 17-55 and 15-85 are better vs the 17-40 on crop. Both have better range and IS!!!!

He speaks the truth here. 17-40 isnt the greatest choice on crop because there are so many better options for a standard zoom, although its a grea UWA on FF.

I also agree with the comments about 2.8 on crop. You dont get sufficiently thin DOF with 2.8 on a crop body and you WILL be pushing the ISO in low light, even with 2.8. Primes are better suited for work requiring large apertures. Personally, I prefer the wider focal range of the 15-85 for my walk around and grab a prime when I have a specific reason to need thinner DOF, which isnt all that common for me. If I want a faster shutter, Ill pop on the flash - I dont like using large apertures as a crutch for low light, their primary purpose is for controlling DOF.

larryvill wrote in post #11582481
So is it wise to complement my 15-85 with a 17-55?? I'm also seriously considering in getting 24-105. I only want gen. purpose / walkaround lenses for now as I have no time to practice specific photography styles having 2 kids on my tail always...

I wouldnt, Id complement it with the sigma 30 1.4 or some other prime in that range. Like I mentioned above, 2.8 really isnt THAT big of a difference - but 1.4 is.

Also, Im not a big fan of the 24-105 on crop. The range was weird for me and I found myself constantly wanting to swap between my 10-22 and 24-105, big PITA for me. Plus, you dont gain much with constant f4, especially when the IS of the 15-85 is superior to that of the 24-105.

horizon chaser wrote in post #11584353
agree with you here, 15-85 is a very sharp lens and well built. balance out nicely with the 7D and sometimes you do need 15mm and 85mm. 17-55 is a great lens but for the money and IQ, I still go for the 15-85mm.

Still can't decide here whether it will be worthwhile to add 17-55 (along with my 15-85) in my arsenal or just get a prime for the low light situations. If only SIGMA 30mm is not notorious with the focusing issues, I'd definitely be swayed to get that. But if I'm gonna skip 17-55 and sigma 30mm, then what would be my next lens to buy?!? Hard decisions....

larryvill wrote in post #11584404
Still can't decide here whether it will be worthwhile to add 17-55 (along with my 15-85) in my arsenal or just get a prime for the low light situations. If only SIGMA 30mm is not notorious with the focusing issues, I'd definitely be swayed to get that. But if I'm gonna skip 17-55 and sigma 30mm, then what would be my next lens to buy?!? Hard decisions....

Canon 28mm is a good choice...

larryvill wrote in post #11584404
Still can't decide here whether it will be worthwhile to add 17-55 (along with my 15-85) in my arsenal or just get a prime for the low light situations. If only SIGMA 30mm is not notorious with the focusing issues, I'd definitely be swayed to get that. But if I'm gonna skip 17-55 and sigma 30mm, then what would be my next lens to buy?!? Hard decisions....

If you have 15-85, you don't really need 17-55 unless you are seriously want to use it for some kind of reason. If you like the sigma 30mm, why can't you think about the canon 50mm 1.4. it's a sharp and great lens in low light. I sold my sigma 30mm to get the canon 50mm 1.4 and love it.

MNUplander wrote in post #11584453
Canon 28mm is a good choice...

Been reading that in the other forums, and from what I've gathered, it is soft wide open and you still need to stop it down to get sharpness. I notice that most of the primes in this range are having the same issues, that's why I considered 17-55 2.8. If 17-55 is sharp @ 2.8 then it is more sensible getting it than the primes.

I like my 35f2 wide open at f2. It gets critically sharp at f2.2. I have posted this one before, but it is at f2.2. The bokeh is a little busy, but I am fine with the images I get from this lens.

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

artyH wrote in post #11584534
I like my 35f2 wide open at f2. It gets critically sharp at f2.2. I have posted this one before, but it is at f2.2. The bokeh is a little busy, but I am fine with the images I get from this lens.

^^^^^

Not the best example
That pic is full of either jpg artifacts or you shrank it to much and the upsize destroyed it. Fuzzy mess...

To the person asking about the sig 30mm 1.4, its a great lens. If you are able to get a good copy, it will reward you with some really great pictures. Its a great indoor people lens. Well its actually a great people lens period! It also produces very little CA when shot wide open.

I'm in the same boat as a few folks here. When I was upgrading my lens, I was torn between the 17-55 f2.8 and the 15-85mm for a all purpose lens, and I ended up with the 15-85mm but kind of regret it now, as I begin to get into a lot of indoor low light situations and quickly discover that the 15-85 is just not good at all for that situation especially on pets.

My question is, is it worth it to try and sell the 18-85 and side step to the 17-55 f2.8 so I could use it for outdoor and indoor? or try to pick up another lens just for indoor? I do have the cheap 50mm f1.8, and it works awesome indoor, but the zoom is just a bit too much for what I need it for, I need to be able to be closer to my subjects while shooting.

I've also looked at some 24 to 35mm primes for indoor, but most of them are none IS, which kind of scares me and kind of holding me back from pulling the trigger, should it really be as big of concern?

Sorry, don't mean to thread jack, but I'd figure its along the same topic, so didn't want to create a new thread.

pdx_btk78 wrote in post #11585383
I'm in the same boat as a few folks here. When I was upgrading my lens, I was torn between the 17-55 f2.8 and the 15-85mm for a all purpose lens, and I ended up with the 15-85mm but kind of regret it now, as I begin to get into a lot of indoor low light situations and quickly discover that the 15-85 is just not good at all for that situation especially on pets.

My question is, is it worth it to try and sell the 18-85 and side step to the 17-55 f2.8 so I could use it for outdoor and indoor? or try to pick up another lens just for indoor? I do have the cheap 50mm f1.8, and it works awesome indoor, but the zoom is just a bit too much for what I need it for, I need to be able to be closer to my subjects while shooting.

I've also looked at some 24 to 35mm primes for indoor, but most of them are none IS, which kind of scares me and kind of holding me back from pulling the trigger, should it really be as big of concern?

Sorry, don't mean to thread jack, but I'd figure its along the same topic, so didn't want to create a new thread.

I wouldnt - get a prime or a flash instead - it will cost you less in the long run since you probably will take a small hit off of new on your 15-85 and the price difference between the two lenses.